Browning v. Am. Honda Motor Co.

549 F.Supp.3d 996

Ronda Ann BROWNING, et al., Plaintiffs,

v.AMERICAN HONDA MOTOR CO., INC., et al., Defendants.

Case No. 20-cv-05417-BLF

United States District Court, N.D. California, San Jose Division.

Signed July 16, 2021

Abigail J. Gertner, Pro Hac Vice, Amey J. Park, Pro Hac Vice, Russell D. Paul, Berger Montague, P.C., Philadelphia, PA, Cody Robert Padgett, Trisha Kathleen Monesi, Steven R. Weinmann, Tarek H. Zohdy, Capstone Lawyers, APC, Los Angeles, CA, for Plaintiffs Ronda Ann Browning, Divina Pappas, Brian Pappas, Kali Wescott, Eric Wescott.

Tarek H. Zohdy, Cody Robert Padgett, Capstone Lawyers, APC, Los Angeles, CA, for Plaintiffs Daniel Pina, Tony Boatwright, Chuen Yong.

Amir M. Nassihi, Andrew John Trask, Joan Alexis Rabutaso Camagong, Shook Hardy & Bacon L.L.P., San Francisco, CA, for Defendant American Honda Motor Co., Inc.

Andrew John Trask, Shook, Hardy & Bacon L.L.P., San Francisco, CA, for Defendant Honda Motor Company Ltd.

ORDER GRANTING MOTION TO DISMISS WITH LEAVE TO AMEND

[Re: ECF 26]

BETH LABSON FREEMAN, United States District Judge

This putative class action alleges a defect in 2018-2019 Honda Odysseys equipped with a 9-speed automatic transmission ("ZF 9HP Automatic Transmission" or the "Transmission"). Am. Compl. ("FAC") ¶¶ 1-3, ECF 25. Specifically, Plaintiffs allege the Transmission contains a defect causing "rough, delayed, or sudden shifting or failure to shift; grinding or other loud noises during shifting; harsh engagement of gears; sudden or harsh accelerations/decelerations; and sudden loss of power" in the 2018-2019 Honda Odysseys ("Class Vehicle"). Id. ¶¶ 7, 14. Before the Court is Defendant American Honda Motor Co., Inc.’s ("AHM") motion to dismiss. Mot., ECF 26. AHM asserts that the FAC is deficient in several respects. The Court heard oral argument on Defendant's motion on June 17, 2021 (the "Hearing"). See Min. Entry, ECF 50. For the reasons discussed below, Defendant's motion is GRANTED IN PART WITH LEAVE TO AMEND.

I. BACKGROUND

While Plaintiffs expect an automatic transmission to "start, accelerate, decelerate, and stop immediately in response to the driver's input," they claim that the Class Vehicles "operate erratically, causing numerous safety concerns." FAC ¶ 9. In 2014, AHM began equipping select vehicle models with a 9-speed "automatic" transmission designed to increase fuel economy.

Id. ¶ 3. Plaintiffs allege that the improved fuel economy came at a "significant and undisclosed cost: rough and delayed shifting, loud noises during shifting, harsh engagement of gears, sudden, harsh accelerations and decelerations, and sudden loss of power." Id.

According to Plaintiffs, traditional automatic transmissions use a set of gears that provide a given number of ratios. FAC ¶ 8. The transmission shifts between gears to provide the most appropriate ratio for a given situation. Id. According to Plaintiffs, that normally means the transmission will automatically shift into lower gears for starting, middle gears for acceleration and passing, and higher gears for more fuel-efficient cruising. Id. The ZF 9HP Automatic Transmission allegedly differs from traditional automatic transmissions in that it uses a 9.8 ratio spread, as opposed to 6, which "ideally allow[s] for shorter shifts between gears keeping the engine in a narrow, optimal band of RPMs for as long as possible, and contributing to greater fuel-efficiency." Id. While the greater-than-average ratio spread of the ZF 9HP Automatic Transmission should allow for shorter shifts between gears and greater fuel efficiency, id. ¶ 8, Plaintiffs allege that the Class Vehicles equipped with the Transmission "contain design defects that cause the transmission to exhibit the following: rough, delayed, or sudden shifting or failure to shift; grinding or other loud noises during shifting; harsh engagement of gears; sudden or harsh accelerations/decelerations; and sudden loss of power," id. ¶ 7.

The FAC explains that the ZF 9HP Automatic Transmission utilizes "dog clutches," which are more commonly found in manual transmissions. Id. ¶ 8. These dog clutches in the ZF 9HP Automatic Transmission are engaged by computer software commands from an electronic control unit. Id. The FAC cites automotive journalist Alex L. Dykes for the following explanation in an article about a ZF 9HP 9-speed transmission used in the 2014 Jeep Cherokee (not the Class Vehicle):

The 9HP's software ... [unlike other automatics] responds by cutting power initially, then diving as far down the gear-ladder as it can, engaging the dog clutches and then reinstating your throttle command. The result is a somewhat odd delay between the pedal on the floor and the car taking off like a bat out of hell.

Id. (alterations in original) (citing Alex L. Dykes, ZF's 9-Speed 9HP Transmission Puts Dog Clutches On The Leash , The Truth About Cars (Feb. 8, 2014)), http://www.thetruthaboutcars.com/2014/02/zfs-9-speed-9hp-transmission-puts-dog-clutches-on-the-leash/ (last visited July 8, 2021).

Plaintiffs define the transmission defect in the following way:

the Class Vehicles equipped with the ZF 9HP Automatic Transmission contain design defects that cause the transmission to exhibit the following: rough, delayed, or sudden shifting or failure to shift; grinding or other loud noises during shifting; harsh engagement of gears; sudden or harsh accelerations/decelerations; and sudden loss of power (the "Transmission Defect").

FAC ¶ 7. They allege that "the Transmission Defect causes unsafe conditions, including, but not limited to, delayed acceleration, abrupt forward propulsion, and sudden loss of power, which are hazardous because they severely affect the driver's ability to control the car." Id. ¶ 10. Plaintiffs specify that "these conditions may make it difficult to change lanes safely, make turns, merge into traffic, and accelerate from stop at intersections, because Class Members’ vehicles can fail to respond correctly to driver's input during these normal traffic conditions." Id.

Plaintiffs are residents of Florida, Ohio, Michigan, South Carolina, Texas, and California that purchased 2018-2019 Honda Odysseys equipped with the Transmission. FAC ¶¶ 22, 44, 54, 65, 77, 87. Plaintiff Ronda Ann Browning (FL), Plaintiffs Divina and Brian Pappas (OH), Plaintiffs Kali and Eric Wescott (MI), Plaintiff Tony Boatwright (SC), Plaintiff Chuen Yong (TX), and Plaintiff Daniel Pina (CA) each allege a similar experience with the Class Vehicles. Each Plaintiff bought a new Class Vehicle in 2018 or 2019 in their respective state of residency. Id. ¶¶ 23, 45, 55, 66, 78, 88. Within the first few months of purchasing the Class Vehicle or "shortly thereafter," each Plaintiff other than Mr. Boatwright alleges that their Class vehicle exhibited "harsh or delayed shifting and engagement, delayed accelerations, banging into gear, hesitation, jerking, shuddering, lurching, and lack of power." Id. ¶¶ 27, 49, 59, 78, 92. Unique to Mr. Boatwright is the allegation that his Odyssey would fail to get into gear and accelerate when slowing down and attempting to reaccelerate, lurch when the transmission would get into gear when the engine was revving, and shift and gain too much speed when going downhill Id. ¶ 70. Ms. Browning, Mr. and Ms. Wescott, Mr. Yong, and Mr. Pina each brought their Class Vehicles to an AHM authorized dealership for repairs on multiple occasions after experiencing the alleged performance issues. Id. ¶¶ 29-33, 60-61, 83-84, 93-97. Mr. and Ms. Pappas and Mr. Boatwright brought their Class Vehicles to an AHM authorized dealership for repair only once. Id. ¶¶ 50, 71. Plaintiffs did not receive any permanent repairs when bringing their Class Vehicles to the AHM authorized dealerships. Id. ¶¶ 29-33, 50, 60-61, 71, 83-84, 93-97.

Based on the foregoing, Plaintiffs filed suit against AHM, a California corporation and Defendant Honda Motor Company LTD, a Japanese Corporation. See FAC. Plaintiffs bring eighteen causes of action against Defendants including the following: violation of consumer protection laws of Florida, Ohio, Michigan, South Carolina, Texas, and California; breach of implied warranty under Florida, Ohio, Michigan, South Carolina, Texas, and California law; breach of express warranty under Michigan, South Carolina, Texas, and California law; a violation of California's Unfair Competition Law ("UCL"); and unjust enrichment. Id. ¶¶ 157-439. Each claim is brought on behalf of the Plaintiff residing in the respective state. Id. ¶¶ 158-435. The claims are also brought on behalf of a proposed nationwide class of individuals that purchased or leased a Class Vehicle, or, in the alternative, a class comprised of the same said individuals residing in the states of the respective state law claims. Id. The only exception is Plaintiffs’ fourteenth cause of action for violation of California's Consumer Legal Remedies Act, which is brought on behalf of Mr. Pina and the CLRA Subclass comprised of individuals defined as consumers within the CLRA. Id. ¶ 386.

II. LEGAL STANDARD

A. Rule 12(b)(6)

Rule 8(a)(2) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure requires a complaint to include "a short and plain statement of the claim showing that the pleader is entitled to relief." A complaint that fails to meet this standard may be dismissed pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6). In other words, "[a] motion to dismiss under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6) for failure to state a claim upon which relief can be granted ‘tests the legal sufficiency of a claim.’ "

Conservation Force v. Salazar , 646 F.3d 1240, 1241-42 (9th Cir. 2011) (quoting Navarro v. Block , 250 F.3d 729, 732 (9th Cir. 2001) ). To survive a Rule 12(b)(6) motion, a complaint must contain "enough facts to state a claim to relief that is plausible on its face." Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly , 550 U.S. 544, 570, 127 S.Ct. 1955, 167 L.Ed.2d 929 (2007). "A claim has facial plausibility when the plaintiff pleads factual content that allows the court to...