On June 14, 2019, the Southern District of New York declined to certify a consumer fraud class action arising from alleged brake defects, holding that an abundance of individualized issues defeated predominance.
- The plaintiffs asserted breach of warranty and consumer protection claims based on allegations that they and putative class members purchased Hyundai Sonatas with defective brakes. They sought certification of a class of all persons who purchased a model-year 2006 through 2010 Sonata in New York and Pennsylvania.
- The court found that the allegations that (1) all putative class members’ vehicles shared the same alleged defect, and (2) Hyundai allegedly concealed the existence of that defect, were insufficient to show that common issues predominated. The court reasoned that despite these common issues, each putative class member’s claim would ultimately depend on highly individualized determinations that were not susceptible to common proof.
- With respect to the breach of warranty claims, each putative class member would need to show that (1) the particular instance of brake failure was within the terms of the warranty; and (2) the particular putative class member complied with all the terms and conditions of the warranty such that warranty coverage was available.
- Similarly, each consumer protection claim depended on the specific representations made (or not made) to each putative class member at the time of purchase.
- The court also rejected the plaintiffs’ attempt to certify a class based on Hyundai’s alleged failure to recall the Sonatas, finding that each claim would also depend on individualized determinations, including whether the alleged defect actually manifested in each putative class member’s vehicle and whether any repair costs incurred were, in fact, caused by Hyundai’s alleged failure to recall the vehicle.
- This decision bolsters the arguments of automotive class action defendants that differences in the circumstances surrounding vehicle purchases, manifestations of an alleged defect, and/or communications with putative class members defeat predominance and preclude class certification. The decision is also helpful for defendants facing class actions based on a failure-to-recall theory.
The case is Marshall v. Hyundai Motor America, and the decision can be read here.
