Sherry Fry, Brittini Barnes, Brittany Cabral, Tristan Fairbanks, Janet Ojo, Jessica Stewart, Kayla McClain, Ellen Einhorn, on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated v. American Honda Motor Co., Inc.

Summary

The United States District Court for the Middle District of Pennsylvania considers American Honda Motor Co.’s motion to dismiss a putative nationwide and state-specific class action concerning an alleged rear-windshield defect in 2023 Honda HR-V vehicles. The motion invokes Rules 12(b)(1), 12(b)(2), 12(b)(6), and 9(b), challenging justiciability, personal jurisdiction, pleading sufficiency, warranty coverage, contractual privity, and fraud pleading. The court states that the motion is granted in part and denied in part.

Holdings

1. A voluntary product update or recall does not render claims moot where plaintiffs seek legal monetary relief, including diminution-in-value damages and reimbursement for out-of-pocket expenses, in addition to equitable relief.
2. The court could exercise general personal jurisdiction over Honda because Honda registered to do business in Pennsylvania and appointed a registered agent, thereby consenting to Pennsylvania jurisdiction under Pennsylvania's consent-by-registration statute.
3. Plaintiffs' unjust-enrichment claim did not sound in fraud and therefore was adequately pleaded under Rule 8 rather than Rule 9(b).
4. Plaintiffs adequately pleaded their Massachusetts Chapter 93A claim without satisfying Rule 9(b) because the claim did not depend on fraud as an element and plaintiffs alleged the defect, Honda's knowledge, and failure to notify consumers.
5. Plaintiffs Ojo, Stewart, McClain, and Einhorn failed to adequately plead their express-warranty claims because Honda's warranty was limited by both time and mileage, and the complaint alleged only the time period, not vehicle mileage when the defect occurred.
6. Einhorn's New Jersey implied-warranty claim was subsumed by the New Jersey Products Liability Act and was not recognized as a separate claim for harm caused by the allegedly defective vehicle.

Questions Presented

1. Whether Honda's voluntary product update, service bulletins, and customer letters rendered plaintiffs' claims prudentially moot under Rule 12(b)(1).
2. Whether the court could exercise personal jurisdiction over Honda for claims brought by the seven non-Pennsylvania named plaintiffs based on Honda's registration to do business in Pennsylvania.
3. Whether plaintiffs' unjust-enrichment and Massachusetts Chapter 93A claims sounded in fraud and therefore had to satisfy Rule 9(b).
4. Whether plaintiffs Ojo, Stewart, McClain, and Einhorn adequately pleaded that their vehicles were within Honda's time-and-mileage express-warranty coverage when the defect occurred.
5. Whether Einhorn's New Jersey implied-warranty claim was subsumed by the New Jersey Products Liability Act.

Disposition

other