Victorino v. Fca U.S. LLC

• Decision Date: 01 June 2018
• Docket Number: Case No.: 16cv1617-GPC(JLB)
• Parties: CARLOS VICTORINO and ADAM TAVITIAN, individually, and on behalf of other members of the general public similarly situated, Plaintiffs, v. FCA US LLC, a Delaware limited liability company, Defendant.
• Court: U.S. District Court — Southern District of California

CARLOS VICTORINO and ADAM TAVITIAN, individually,and on behalf of other members of the general public similarly situated, Plaintiffs, v. FCA US LLC, a Delaware limited liability company, Defendant.

Case No.: 16cv1617-GPC(JLB)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

June 1, 2018

TENTATIVE RULING DENYING PLAINTIFFS' AMENDED MOTION FOR CLASS CERTIFICATION

[Dkt. No. 215.]

Before the Court is Plaintiffs' amended motion for class certification. (Dkt. No. 215.) The motion is fully briefed and a hearing is set on calendar at 1:30 p.m. on June 1, 2018. After a review of the briefs, supporting documentation and the applicable law, the Court issues the following tentative ruling denying Plaintiffs' amended motion for class certification in advance of the hearing.

Background

Plaintiffs Carlos Victorino ("Victorino") and Adam Tavitian ("Tavitian") (collectively "Plaintiffs") filed a putative first amended class action complaint based on defects in the 2013-2016 Dodge Dart vehicles equipped with a Fiat C635 manual transmission that cause their vehicles' clutches to fail and stick to the floor against Defendant FCA US LLC ("FCA" or "Defendant"), the manufacturer of these vehicles, including Plaintiffs' vehicles. (Dkt. No. 104, FAC ¶¶ 1, 2, 52.) In their amended motion for class certification, Plaintiffs claim a design defect in the 2013-2015 Dodge Dart vehicles equipped with a Fiat C635 manual transmission built on or before November 12, 2014 ("Class Vehicles"). (Dkt. No. 215-1 at 6¹.)

Plaintiffs claim the hydraulic clutch system ("Clutch System") is defective where the "clutch pedal loses pressure, sticks to the floor, and fails to engage/disengage gears. As a result, the Class Vehicles exhibit stalling, failure to accelerate, and premature failure of the Clutch System's components, including the clutch master cylinder and reservoir hose, clutch slave cylinder and release bearing, clutch disc, pressure plate, and flywheel." (Dkt. No. 104, FAC ¶ 2.)

Plaintiffs allege two separate defects in the Clutch System.² First, the clutch defect is caused by the degradation of the clutch reservoir hose, which releases plasticizer and fibers, causing contamination of the hydraulic fluid that bathes the components of the Clutch System. (Id. ¶ 7.) As a result, the contamination causes the internal and external seals of the clutch master cylinder ("CMC") and clutch slave cylinder ("CSC") to swell and fail. (Id. ¶¶ 7, 8.) According to Plaintiffs, when fluid in the hydraulic systembecomes contaminated, all of the components that have been exposed to the contaminated fluid must be replaced and any steel tubing must also be thoroughly cleaned with brake cleaner and blown out until dry to ensure that none of the contaminants remain. (Id. ¶ 8.) Second, Plaintiffs claim an additional defect in the CSC which exacerbates the problems with the Clutch System. FCA designed its CSC as an assembly composed of an aluminum body with a clipped-on plastic base whereas other manufacturers' slave cylinders are composed of a single, solid cast aluminum component which creates a rigid base. (Id. ¶ 13.) Defendant's two-piece design destabilizes the cylinder at its base, "which can result in unintended lateral movement and cause the piston inside the cylinder to become jammed." (Id.)

On January 8, 2016, FCA implemented a voluntary customer service action, Service Bulletin 06-001-16 entitled "Clutch Pedal Operation X62 Extended Warranty" ("X62 Extended Warranty repair") to address the issue of the contaminated hydraulic fluid caused by the degradation of the clutch reservoir hose and involved the "replacement of the hydraulic clutch master cylinder and reservoir hose" for the 2013-2015 Dodge Dart vehicles. (Dkt. No. 216-1, Zohdy Decl., Ex. H at 62; Dkt. No. 183-4, Padgett Decl., Ex. 9 at 19.)

In this litigation, Plaintiffs claim that the X62 Extended Warranty repair failed to fully address and repair the defect and ignores the systemic effect of the contaminated hydraulic fluid. They contend that if the hydraulic fluid is contaminated, all clutch system components are susceptible to damage and the well-known industry standard requires that all component parts within the system must be replaced. (Dkt. No. 216-1, Zohdy Decl., Ex. B, Stapleton Decl. ¶ 9.) According to Plaintiffs, any repair requires replacement of all component parts, including the CSC, thorough cleaning of any steel tubing with brake cleaner and drying before reassembly. (Dkt. No. 232-5, D's Mot. to Exclude, Stapleford Expert Report ¶ 16.)

Defendant's theory, in defense, is that the seal swelling has only manifested itself in 16% of the Class Vehicles because each Class Vehicle has component parts that are manufactured differently. (Dkt. No. 229-1, Benson Decl. ¶¶ 18, 19.) The differences are attributable to the manufacture of reservoir hoses with different amounts of plasticizer, the manufacture of CMCs in different sizes, and variations in the positioning of primary seals on the CMC. (Id.) According to the defense, the existence of the defect depends entirely on the amount of plasticizer in the reservoir hose, the size and position of the clutch system seals and the level of the varying tolerances. (Id.)

The FAC alleged five causes of action for violations of California's Consumer Legal Remedies Act ("CLRA"), California's unfair competition law ("UCL"), breach of implied warranty pursuant to Song-Beverly Consumer Warranty Act ("Song-Beverly Act"), breach of implied warranty pursuant to the Magnuson-Moss Warranty Act ("MMWA"), and unjust enrichment. (Dkt. No. 104, FAC.) After the Court's ruling on Defendant's motion for summary judgment and subsequent motion for reconsideration, (Dkt. Nos. 206, 240), the remaining causes of action are the breach of implied warranty of merchantability under the Song-Beverly Act, the MMWA, and a UCL claim premised on the breach of implied warranty claims.

Because the Court's ruling on reconsideration was filed after the motion for class certification and opposition were filed and addresses the CLRA and related claims, the Court only addresses the issues as it relates to the state and federal claims for a breach of implied warranty of merchantability as well as the UCL claim.

Discussion

A. Legal Standard on Class Certification

"The class action is an exception to the usual rule that litigation is conducted by and on behalf of individual named parties only. In order to justify a departure from that rule, a class representative must be a part of the class and possess the same interest andsuffer the same injury as the class members." Wal-Mart Stores, Inc. v. Dukes, 131 S. Ct. 2541, 2550 (2011) (internal quotation marks and citations omitted). A plaintiff seeking class certification must affirmatively show the class meets the requirements of Rule 23. Comcast Corp. v. Behrend, 133 S. Ct. 1426, 1432 (2013) (citing Dukes, 131 S. Ct. at 2551-52). To obtain certification, a plaintiff bears the burden of proving that the class meets all four requirements of Rule 23(a)--numerosity, commonality, typicality, and adequacy. Ellis v. Costco Wholesale Corp., 657 F.3d 970 979-80 (9th Cir. 2011). If these prerequisites are met, the court must then decide whether the class action is maintainable under Rule 23(b). United Steel, Paper & Forestry, Rubber, Mfg. Energy, Allied Indus. & Serv. Workers Int'l Union AFL-CIO, CLC v. ConocoPhillips Co., 593 F.3d 802, 806 (9th Cir. 2010). This case involves Rule 23(b)(3), which authorizes certification when "questions of law or fact common to class members predominate over any questions affecting only individual class members," and "a class action is superior to other available methods for fairly and efficiently adjudicating the controversy." Fed. R. Civ. P. 23(b)(3). The Court exercises discretion in granting or denying a motion for class certification. Staton v. Boeing Co., 327 F.3d 938, 953 (9th Cir. 2003).

The Court is required to perform a "rigorous analysis," which may require it "to probe behind the pleadings before coming to rest on the certification question." Dukes, 131 S. Ct. at 2551. "'[T]he merits of the class members' substantive claims are often highly relevant when determining whether to certify a class. More importantly, it is not correct to say a district court may consider the merits to the extent that they overlap with class certification issues; rather, a district court must consider the merits if they overlap with Rule 23(a) requirements." Ellis, 657 F.3d at 981. Nonetheless, the district court does not conduct a mini-trial to determine if the class "could actually prevail on the merits of their claims." Id. at 983 n.8; United Steel, Paper & Forestry, Rubber, Manufacturing Energy, Allied Indus. & Serv. Workers Int'l Union, AFL-CIO, CLC v.ConocoPhillips Co., 593 F.3d 802, 808 (9th Cir. 2010) (citation omitted) (court may inquire into substance of case to apply the Rule 23 factors, however, "[t]he court may not go so far . . . as to judge the validity of these claims.").

Here, the FAC alleges that the "implied warranty included, among other things: (i) a warranty that the Class Vehicles and their Clutch Systems were manufactured, supplied, distributed, and/or sold by FCA were safe and reliable for providing transportation; and (ii) a warranty that the Class Vehicles and their Clutch Systems would be fit for their intended use while the Class Vehicles were being operated." (Dkt. No. 104, FAC ¶¶ 131, 141.)

The Song-Beverly Consumer Warranty Act ("Song-Beverly Act") provides that "every sale of consumer goods that are sold at retail in this state shall be accompanied by the manufacturer's and the retail seller's implied warranty that the goods are merchantable." Cal. Civ. Code § 1792. "Consumer goods" is defined as "any new product or part thereof that is used, bought, or leased for use primarily for personal, family, or household purposes, except for clothing and consumables." Cal. Civ. Code § 1791(a). An...