Cahen v. Toyota Motor Corp.
United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
November 15, 2017, Argued and Submitted, San Francisco, California; December 21, 2017, Filed
Helene Cahen and Merrill Nisam ("plaintiffs") appeal the district court's dismissal of their [**2] claims for violations of California's Unfair Competition Law ("UCL") (Count I), Consumers Legal Remedies Act ("CLRA") (Count II), and False Advertising Law ("FAL") (Count III), as well as for Breach of Implied Warranty of Merchantability (Count IV), Breach of Contract/Common Law Warranty (Count V), Fraud by Concealment (Count VI), Violation of Song-Beverly Consumer Warranty Act (Count VII), and Invasion of Privacy under Article I of the California Constitution (Count VIII). We conclude that the district court correctly found that plaintiffs failed to establish Article III standing for all of their claims.
1. ] We review the district court's dismissal for lack of Article III standing de novo. Nat'l Council of La Raza v. Cegavske, 800 F.3d 1032, 1039 (9th Cir. 2015); Vaughn v. Bay Envtl. Mgmt, Inc., 567 F.3d 1021, 1024 (9th Cir. 2009).] Standing has three elements: "The plaintiff must have (1) suffered an injury in fact, (2) that is fairly traceable to the challenged conduct of the defendant, and (3) that is likely to be redressed by a favorable judicial decision." Spokeo, Inc. v. Robins, 136 S. Ct. 1540, 1547, 194 L. Ed. 2d 635 (2016) (citing Lujan v. Defs. of Wildlife, 504 U.S. 555, 560-61, 112 S. Ct. 2130, 119 L. Ed. 2d 351 (1992); Friends of the Earth, Inc. v. Laidlaw Envtl. Servs. (TOC), Inc., 528 U.S. 167, 180-81, 120 S. Ct. 693, 145 L. Ed. 2d 610 (2000)). The plaintiff bears the burden of establishing these elements, and when "a case is at the pleading stage, the plaintiff must 'clearly . . . allege facts demonstrating' each element." Id. (quoting [*723] Warth v. Seldin, 422 U.S. 490, 518, 95 S. Ct. 2197, 45 L. Ed. 2d 343 (1975)). "To establish injury in fact, a plaintiff must show that he or she suffered an invasion of a legally [**3] protected interest that is concrete and particularized and actual or imminent, not conjectural or hypothetical." Spokeo, Inc., 136 S. Ct. at 1548 (quoting Lujan, 504 U.S. at 560); see also Clapper v. Amnesty Int'l USA, 568 U.S. 398, 409, 133 S. Ct. 1138, 185 L. Ed. 2d 264 (2013).
2. Plaintiffs claim that their vehicles are vulnerable to being hacked because their vehicles' computer systems lack security. Plaintiffs allege that "[a]s a result of Defendants' unfair, deceptive, and/or fraudulent business practices, and their failure to disclose the highly material fact that their vehicles are susceptible to hacking and neither secure nor safe, owners and/or lessees of Defendants' vehicles are currently at risk of theft, damage, serious physical injury, or death as a result of hacking, and they will continue to face this risk until they are notified of the dangers associated with their vehicles and are given funds and guidance by Defendants as to how to correct the security defects, or until Defendants correct them." Plaintiffs also allege that they have been injured because their vehicles are worth less than what they paid for them due to these hacking vulnerabilities and allege that their privacy is invaded due to defendants' collection of vehicle data.Read The Full CaseNot a Lexis Advance subscriber? Try it out for free.
Full case includes Shepard's, Headnotes, Legal Analytics from Lex Machina, and more.
717 Fed. Appx. 720 *; 2017 U.S. App. LEXIS 26261 **; 2017 WL 6525501
HELENE CAHEN and MERRILL NISAM, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs-Appellants, v. TOYOTA MOTOR CORP.; et al., Defendants-Appellees.
Notice: PLEASE REFER TO FEDERAL RULES OF APPELLATE PROCEDURE RULE 32.1 GOVERNING THE CITATION TO UNPUBLISHED OPINIONS.
Prior History: [**1] Appeal from the United States District Court for the Northern District of California. D.C. No. 3:15-cv-01104-WHO. William Horsley Orrick, District Judge, Presiding.
Cahen v. Toyota Motor Corp., 147 F. Supp. 3d 955, 2015 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 159595 (N.D. Cal., Nov. 25, 2015)
Civil Procedure, Appeals, Standards of Review, De Novo Review, Constitutional Law, The Judiciary, Case or Controversy, Standing, Justiciability, Standing, Burdens of Proof, Elements, Injury in Fact