In re Takata Airbag Prod. Liab. Litig.

• Docket Number: MDL No. 2599,Master File No. 15-MD-02599-MORENO,S.D. Fla. Case No. 1:14-cv-24009-MORENO
• Decision Date: 15 June 2023
• Citation: 677 F.Supp.3d 1311
• Parties: IN RE: TAKATA AIRBAG PRODUCT LIABILITY LITIGATION This Document Relates to: Economic Loss Track Cases Against FCA US, LLC
• Court: U.S. District Court — Southern District of Florida

677 F.Supp.3d 1311

IN RE: TAKATA AIRBAG PRODUCT LIABILITY LITIGATION

This Document Relates to: Economic Loss Track Cases Against FCA US, LLC

MDL No. 2599

Master File No. 15-MD-02599-MORENO

S.D. Fla.Case No. 1:14-cv-24009-MORENO

United States District Court, S.D. Florida, Miami Division

Entered June 20, 2023

Signed June 15, 2023

ORDER GRANTING PLAINTIFFS' MOTION FOR CLASS CERTIFICATION AGAINST DEFENDANTFCA US, LLC

FEDERICO A. MORENO, UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

THIS CAUSE came before the Court upon Plaintiffs' Motion for Class Certification and Incorporated Memorandum of Law (D.E. 4608), filed on April 7, 2023.The Court has considered the Plaintiffs' Motion, the DefendantFCA US LLC's ("FCA") Response in Opposition, the Plaintiffs' Reply, and is otherwise fully advised in the premises.

BACKGROUND

This multidistrict litigation consolidates allegations of economic loss and personal injury related to airbags manufactured by former defendantsTakata Corporation and TK Holdings (collectively, "Takata") and equipped in vehicles sold by, among others, FCA.The allegations are that FCA's vehicles were equipped with Takata airbags containing the chemical ammonium nitrate, which creates a small explosion to inflate the airbags during a crash.And Plaintiffs, who are consumers of FCA's vehicles, contend that when exposed to high heat and humidity, the explosion is much more forceful and can cause significant injuries and even death (the "Inflator Defect").

The crux of Plaintiffs' legal claims is that FCA knew or should have known of the Inflator Defect before installing the Takata airbags in their vehicles, and that FCA concealed from, or failed to notify, Plaintiffs and the general public of the full and complete nature of the defect.Plaintiffs further allege that because of FCA's concealment of the Inflator Defect, Plaintiffs did not receive the benefit of their bargain and overpaid for their vehicles when they purchased them.More specifically, they argue that consumers who purchased vehicles with defective airbag inflators suffered economic injuries when they purchased for x dollars a car that contained a latent defect; had they known about the defect, they would have paid fewer than x dollars for the car (or not bought the car at all), because a car with a safety defect is worth less than a car without one.

This Order follows the Court's November 10, 2022 order granting summary judgment in favor of FCA and the remaining Defendants on Plaintiffs' claims brought in 12 of 14 states based on Plaintiffs' lack of damages under each state's laws because the airbags at issue were either replaced for free or offered to be replaced for free, making the Plaintiffs in those states whole and restoring the benefit of their bargain.SeeECFNo. 4471at 15.After this Court's ruling, three named Plaintiffs with claims against FCA remain: Michelle Gibson(GA), Debra Johnson(GA), and Laquintha O'Neal(NC)(the "Remaining Plaintiffs").Now, Plaintiffs seek to certify common law fraud claims in Georgia and North Carolina and nine (9) new states and a District: Alabama, Colorado, Delaware, the District of Columbia, Rhode Island, Tennessee, Utah, West Virginia, and Wisconsin (the "New States,") together with a standalone North Carolina consumer fraud class (collectively, the "Proposed Classes").Therefore, the Court must determine whether to certify the Proposed Classes.

Pursuant to Rule 23 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, Plaintiffs move to certify the following multistate class for Plaintiffs' fraud claims against FCA, with PlaintiffsMichelle Gibson, Debra Johnson, and Laquintha O'Neal as class representatives:

All persons who, prior to the date on which the Class Vehicle was recalled and after June 10, 2009, bought a Class Vehicle in the state of Georgia, North Carolina, Alabama, Colorado, Delaware, the District of Columbia, Rhode Island, Tennessee, Utah, West Virginia, or Wisconsin, and reside in the same state, and (i) still own the Class Vehicle, or (ii) sold the Class Vehicle after the date on which the Class Vehicle was recalled, or (iii) following an accident, whose Class Vehicle was declared a total loss after the date on which the Class Vehicle was recalled.

Plaintiffs also move to certify the following single-state class for Plaintiff O'Neal's claim under the North Carolina Unfair and Deceptive Trade Practices Act:

All persons who, prior to the date on which the Class Vehicle was recalled and after June 10, 2009, bought a Class Vehicle in the state of North Carolina and reside in the same state and (i) still own the Class Vehicle, or (ii) sold the Class Vehicle after the date on which the Class Vehicle was recalled, or (iii) following an accident, whose Class Vehicle was declared a total loss after the date on which the Class Vehicle was recalled.

For the reasons explained below, the CourtGRANTSPlaintiffs' Motion to certify the Proposed Classes.

LEGAL STANDARDS

I.Choice of Law

Plaintiffs' claims are governed by the laws of the states in which the Class Vehicles¹ were purchased.In re: Takata Airbag Prod. Liab. Litig., No. 14-24009-CV, 2016 WL 6072406(S.D. Fla.Oct. 14, 2016);accord seeTershakovec v. Ford Motor Co., 546 F. Supp. 3d 1348, 1371(S.D. Fla.2021).This is because "the injury occurs where the car is sold."Tershakovec, 546 F. Supp. 3d at 1371;see alsoIn re Takata Airbag Prod. Liab. Litig., 464 F. Supp. 3d 1291, 1301(S.D. Fla.2020)(reasoning that for the Plaintiffs that purchased or leased their vehicle in their state of residence, "there is a 'rational reason' to depart from applying Michigan substantive law," the law that may have otherwise applied under a presumption in favor of lex fori).

II.Class Certification

In a class action, representative litigants may bring claims on behalf of absent persons called class members.Class actions are "an exception to the usual rule that litigation is conducted by and on behalf of the individual named parties only,"Califano v. Yamasaki, 442 U.S. 682, 700-701, 99 S.Ct. 2545, 61 L.Ed.2d 176(1979), and as a result, the presumption is against class certification.Brown v. Electrolux Home Prod., Inc., 817 F.3d 1225, 1233(11th Cir.2016).Although district courts have traditionally enjoyed broad discretion in deciding whether to certify a class, Washington v. Brown & Williamson Tobacco Corp., 959 F.2d 1566, 1569(11th Cir.1992), that discretion must be carefully exercised according to the dictates of Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23.Klay v. Humana, Inc., 382 F.3d 1241, 1251(11th Cir.2004).

To proceed as a class, the named representatives must complete a burdensome checklist.Specifically, they"must satisfy an implicit ascertainability requirement, the four requirements listed in Rule 23(a), and at least one of the requirements listed in Rule 23(b)."Ohio State Troopers Ass'n, Inc. v. Point Blank Enterprises, Inc., 481 F. Supp. 3d 1258, 1270(S.D. Fla.2020).Rule 23(a) requires that:

(1) the class is so numerous that joinder of all members is impracticable;

(2) there are questions of law or fact common to the class;

(3) the claims or defenses of the representative parties are typical of the claims or defenses of the class; and

(4) the representative parties will fairly and adequately protect the interests of the class.

Fed. R. Civ. P. 23(a).These requirements are generally referred to as "numerosity, commonality, typicality, and adequacy of representation."Vega v. T-Mobile USA, Inc., 564 F.3d 1256, 1265(11th Cir.2009).

If the plaintiffs have affirmatively demonstrated that ascertainability and the four requirements of Rule 23(a) are satisfied, the Court moves on to Rule 23(b).Since Plaintiffs seek certification under Rule 23(b)(3), they must also demonstrate that "questions of law or fact common to class members predominate over any questions affecting only individual members, and that a class action is superior to other available methods for fairly and efficiently adjudicating the controversy."Fed. R. Civ. P. 23(b)(3).Finally, Plaintiffs must establish that "damages are susceptible of measurement across the entire class for purposes of Rule 23(b)(3)."Comcast Corp. v. Behrend, 569 U.S. 27, 35, 133 S.Ct. 1426, 185 L.Ed.2d 515(2013).

Since it is the Plaintiffs' burden to establish that Rule 23 is satisfied, and that rule does not set forth a mere pleading standard, "the merits of the underlying claim may be considered to the extent that they are relevant to determining whether the Rule 23 prerequisites for class certification are satisfied."Ohio State Troopers Ass'n, Inc., 481 F. Supp. 3d at 1271(simplified).Doubts are resolved against class certification.Brown, 817 F.3d at 1234.

DISCUSSION

I.Rule 23(a) is Satisfied

A. Ascertainability

The first step for a plaintiff seeking class certification is to establish that the proposed class is adequately defined and clearly ascertainable.Little v. T-Mobile USA, Inc., 691 F.3d 1302, 1304(11th Cir.2012).To do so, a plaintiff must show that class members can be identified by reference to objective criteria.Bussey v. Macon Cty. Greyhound Park, Inc., 562 F. App'x 782, 787(11th Cir.2014).And such objective criteria must enable an identification process that is administratively feasible, requiring little, if any, individual inquiry.Id.

FCA first argues that Plaintiffs' proposed class definitions are overbroad and vague because they include vehicles that were manufactured by Old Chrysler (and not FCA) in the definition of Class Vehicles.The Court, however, disagrees.While FCA is correct that Plaintiffs are barred from attempting to assert claims on behalf of themselves or others that purchased vehicles manufactured by Chrysler prior to June 10, 2009, the Proposed Classes only include people who purchased Class Vehicles afterJune 10, 2009.Moreover, FCA is not shielded from liability for its own alleged concealment of the Inflator Defect and alleged misrepresentations as to the safety of the Class...