Lassen v. Nissan N. Am., Inc., Case No. CV 15-06491-AB (MRWx)
| Citation | 211 F.Supp.3d 1267 |
| Decision Date | 30 September 2016 |
| Docket Number | Case No. CV 15-06491-AB (MRWx), Case No. ED CV 15-02434-AB (MRWx), Case No. CV 15-09200-AB (MRWx), Case No. CV 15-09204-AB (MRWx), Case No. SA CV 15-01988-AB (MRWx) |
| Court | U.S. District Court — Central District of California |
| Parties | Patricia LASSEN, et al., Plaintiffs, v. NISSAN NORTH AMERICA, INC., Defendant. Jason Shapiro, et al., Plaintiffs, v. Ford Motor Company, Defendant. Richard Draeger, et al., Plaintiffs, v. Toyota Motor Sales, U.S.A., Defendant. Bernice Wimley, et al., Plaintiffs, v. FCA US LLC, Defendant. Daniel Chesler, et al., Plaintiffs, v. Hyundai Motors America, Inc., Defendant. |
Brian R. Morrison, Daniel R. Leathers, Martis Ann Alex, Labaton Sucharow LLP, New York, NY, Elaine T. Byszewski, Lee M. Gordon, Hagens Berman Sobol Shapiro LLP, Pasadena, CA, Steve W. Berman, Hagens Berman Sobol Shapiro LLP, Seattle, WA, for Plaintiffs.
Carlos Manuel Lazatin, Michael W. Reynolds, O'Melveny and Myers LLP, Los Angeles, CA, Randall W. Edwards, O'Melveny & Myers, San Francisco, CA, Jill C. Griset, McGuirewoods LLP, Charlotte, NC, for Defendant.
ORDER GRANTING MOTION TO DISMISS COMPLAINT [121] [26] [29] [28] [31] [33]
This Order resolves motions to dismiss in five related consumer fraud class action lawsuits against six Automakers concerning vehicles equipped with keyless fob ignition systems that lack an auto-off feature. The Plaintiffs assert that their vehicles' lack of an auto-off feature constitutes a design defect that the Automakers had a duty to disclose before sale. The Plaintiffs claim that by not disclosing before sale that the vehicles lacked auto-off, the Automakers engaged in fraud. The Automakers move to dismiss on numerous grounds.1 The Court heard oral argument on June 27, 2016. For the following reasons, the motions to dismiss are GRANTED .
All of the Plaintiffs originally filed their claims in August 2015 in a single Complaint against eighteen Automakers and their design entities. See Patricia Lassen, et al v. Nissan North America, Inc., et al. , No. 2:15–cv–06491–AB–MRW (C.D. Cal. filed August 26, 2015) (original action). That Complaint was filed by twenty-seven Plaintiffs, and asserted thirty-one causes of action under the law of nine states. In November 2015, the Automakers moved to dismiss on the ground of misjoinder and on substantive grounds also raised in the instant motions.
In response, the Plaintiffs voluntarily dismissed each defendant Automaker except Nissan, which remained in the original case. The Plaintiffs then filed eight separate class actions against most of the dismissed Automakers, for a total of nine cases. Plaintiffs voluntarily dismissed four of the cases, so these five remain.
Hereinafter, as necessary, the Court will refer to the cases by their Automaker defendant, e.g., Nissan . Because all of the individual actions are related to the original Nissan case, they were all transferred to the same judge. Each case asserts claims for common law and statutory consumer fraud and unjust enrichment under California law. In addition, all cases except Ford , which involves only California claims, also assert some combination of analogous common law and statutory consumer fraud claims, and claims for breach of the implied warranty of merchantability and unjust enrichment, under Colorado, Florida, Massachusetts, New Jersey, and New York law.2 The Court also notes that although the docket in each case except Nissan reflects that only one Complaint has been filed, those Complaints are actually their Plaintiffs' second efforts to assert their claims because Plaintiffs initially asserted all of their claims against all of the Automakers in the Nissan case.
The Complaints allege facts and assert theories that are the same in all respects material to the disposition of these motions, and the motions raise similar grounds for dismissal: preemption, primary jurisdiction, lack of standing, and failure to state a claim. The Court will only reach preemption, primary jurisdiction, and standing, and the analyses apply in the same way to all claims. Accordingly, for ease of review and to conserve the Court's and the parties' resources, the Court is issuing this single order resolving all six of the motions rather than a separate order for each case.
As noted, these five cases were initially filed as a single case, and although there are now five different operative Complaints their factual allegations are essentially the same. The Court will thus refer to all Plaintiffs collectively, and to all of the defendants collectively as the Automakers. For purposes of summarizing the relevant facts, the Court will refer to the First Amended Complaint ("FAC," Dkt. No. 111) in Nissan .
Plaintiffs own or lease vehicles manufactured by the Automakers that are equipped with an electronic keyless fob system ("keyless fob") to start the ignition. FAC ¶¶ 1, 39. Keyless fobs allow the driver to start the ignition without using a conventional key. Id. at ¶ 2. Keyless fobs transmit an electronic signal to a computer system in the vehicle, and when the fob is inside the car, the driver starts the vehicle's engine by pressing a stop/start button on the dashboard. Id. at ¶ 9. Although the keyless fob must be inside the vehicle for the vehicle to be started, vehicle engines do not automatically turn off when the keyless fob is removed from the vehicle; to turn off the vehicle, the driver must press the start/stop button. Id. at ¶¶ 6, 11. Thus, if a driver parks, exits the vehicle, and removes the fob from the vehicle but does not press the start/stop button, the vehicle's engine will continue to run, presumably until its fuel supply is exhausted. Id. at ¶¶ 6, 11, 14.
Running engines emit carbon monoxide, and the build-up of carbon monoxide in enclosed spaces like garages poses a risk of serious injury from carbon monoxide poisoning. Id. at ¶¶ 12, 17. Plaintiffs allege that drivers "fail to appreciate that the Keyless Fob plays no role in turning off a Keyless-Fob-equipped vehicle's engine," id. at ¶ 14, so drivers sometimes inadvertently leave such vehicles running in enclosed spaces. Id. at ¶ 27. Plaintiffs thus claim that such vehicles "have a dangerous propensity to cause carbon monoxide poisoning." Id. at ¶ 86.
At various places, the FAC catalogs a number of incidents of carbon monoxide poisoning—including fourteen deaths—resulting from keyless fob-equipped vehicles left running in enclosed spaces like garages. See, e.g., id. at ¶¶ 17-22, 164-166. Plaintiffs contend that vehicles equipped with keyless fobs should be equipped with an auto-off feature ("Auto-Off") by which the vehicles would automatically turn off after a certain amount of time, and that it is a design defect for such vehicles to not have Auto-Off. See id. at ¶ 15 ().
Six Plaintiffs remain in the Nissan action, and their allegations are all similar. Plaintiff Lassen's allegations are representative. She purchased her 2007 Nissan Murano in 2013 from a BMW dealer. Id. at ¶ 41. She reviewed the marketing materials on Nissan's website, and none of the pre-sale materials she reviewed disclosed that the vehicle lacked Auto-Off, and that the lack of Auto-Off poses a serious safety risk. Id. at ¶¶ 46-48. Lassen "inadvertently left the vehicle running on at least two occasions, once at home and once at work."Id. at ¶ 49. She claims that "[if] not for the fact that a neighbor told her that her car continued to run while she was [sic], she would not have noticed." Id. Plaintiff claims that she is now concerned about the lack of Auto-Off in the vehicle, that she "would not have leased3 or would have paid less for the lease had she known of the Defect beforehand," and that she therefore overpaid for the vehicle. Id. at ¶¶ 50, 54, 55. All of the Plaintiffs in all of the cases make similar allegations: they reviewed pre-sale marketing materials before purchasing their vehicles, none of those materials disclosed the lack of Auto-Off and the resulting danger, they experienced the vehicle not automatically turning off, they are now concerned about the lack of Auto-Off, and they would not have purchased or leased their vehicles or would have paid less had they known about the lack of Auto-Off, and they were harmed by overpaying.
No Plaintiff in these cases suffered any physical injury. Indeed, the classes expressly exclude "individuals who have suffered personal injuries as a result of the facts alleged herein." Id. at ¶¶ 221. Rather, Plaintiffs claim their harm consists of three elements: first, each "inadvertently left the [ ] Vehicles' engines running, and therefore have experienced the Defect first-hand"; second, they overpaid because the price of the defective keyless fobs was included in the vehicles' price; and third, the value of their vehicles is diminished. Id. at ¶ 39.
Notably, although all of the claims are premised on allegations that the lack of Auto-Off is a design defect, these are not products liability actions. Rather, Plaintiffs' claims sound in consumer fraud: they claim that the automakers unlawfully failed to disclose the alleged defect—that the vehicles lack Auto-Off—in order to induce them to purchase or lease the vehicles.
Plaintiffs seek declaratory and injunctive relief, including a determination that the affected vehicles are defective, an order requiring the Automakers to notify all class members that the affected vehicles are defective, an order requiring them to permanently repair the affected vehicles and to include Auto-Off in all newly-produced affected vehicles, an injunction barring them from "selling future vehicles with the Defect," and an injunction "requiring [them] to institute Auto-Off in all Affected Vehicles." See Nissan FAC Prayer for Relief, pp. 107-109. Plaintiffs also seek...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Beck v. FCA US LLC
...in fact is premised on the loss of a 'safety' benefit that was not part of the bargain to begin with."); Lassen v. Nissan N.A., Inc., 211 F.Supp.3d 1267, 1283–1284 (C.D. Cal. 2016) ("Insofar as Plaintiffs' claimed economic damages arising out of the alleged 'defect' can be characterized as ......
-
In re Ariz. Theranos, Inc., Litig.
...and (4) when the defendant makes partial representations but also suppresses some material fact." Lassen v. Nissan North America, Inc., 211 F.Supp.3d 1267, 1284 (C.D. Cal. 2016) (quoting Falk v. Gen. Motors Corp., 496 F.Supp.2d 1088, 1094 (N.D. Cal. 2007) ). "Arizona follows the Restatement......
-
Baranco v. Ford Motor Co.
...liability case and concluding it must be based either on consumer expectations or a risk-utility test); Lassen v. Nissan N. Am., Inc. , 211 F.Supp.3d 1267, 1289 (C.D. Cal. 2016) (refusing to import product liability defect standards into consumer fraud context and concluding that "[p]lainti......
-
In re Amla Litig.
...make matters even more complicated, various other states have their own idiosyncrasies. See, e.g., Lassen v. Nissan N. Am., Inc., 211 F.Supp.3d 1267, 1286 (C.D. Cal. 2016) (as a matter of California law, design defect standards cannot be imported into consumer fraud cases where the product ......
-
CONTRACT REMEDIES NEED NOT UNDERCOMPENSATE ASPIRING PARENTS WHEN CRYOPRESERVED REPRODUCTIVE MATERIAL IS LOST OR DESTROYED: RECOVERY OF CONSEQUENTIAL DAMAGES FOR EMOTIONAL DISTURBANCE WHEN BREACH OF CONTRACT RESULTS IN THE LOST OPPORTUNITY TO BECOME PREGNANT WITH ONE'S OWN BIOLOGICAL CHILD.
...(same); C.T. Charlton & Assocs., Inc. v. Thule, Inc., 541 F. App'x 549, 553 (6th Cir. 2013) (same); Lassen v. Nissan N. Am., Inc., 211 F. Supp. 3d 1267, 1281 (C.D. Cal. 2016) (same); Trans World Metals, Inc. v. Southwire Co., 769 F.2d 902, 908 (2d Cir. 1985) (same); Tesoro Petroleum Cor......