Grodzitsky v. Am. Honda Motor Co.

Opinion

 [*981]  RAWLINSON, Circuit Judge:

In this design defect case, Appellant Phyllis Grodzitsky (Grodzitsky), the class representative for a proposed class of purchasers and lessees of 2003-2008 Honda Pilot vehicles, appeals the district court's order excluding her expert's opinion and denying class certification. Grodzitsky alleged that window regulators inside Honda Pilot vehicles were defectively designed because the regulators failed to properly support the side windows, rendering the windows inoperable. Plaintiff's expert Glenn Akhavein (Akhavein) opined that Honda window regulators were not sufficiently durable when exposed to vibrations at certain frequencies. We affirm the district court's order excluding Grodzitsky's expert and denying class certification.

I. BACKGROUND [**4] 

In her third amended class action complaint, Grodzitsky alleged that the window regulators installed by Honda were defective because they caused windows to fall into the doorframes, which increased the likelihood of injuries or accidents. Based on the alleged defect, Grodzitsky alleged causes of action for: (1) violations of California's Consumer Legal Remedies Act, Cal. Civ. Code § 1750 et seq.; and (2) violations of California's Unfair Competition Law, Cal. Bus. & Prof. Code § 17200 et seq.

Grodzitsky initially sought certification of a class of "[a]ll persons in the United  [*982]  States who purchased or leased [one of seven Honda models, for model years 2000-2011, including the Honda Pilot] with the Window Regulator," as well as various subclasses based on the residencies of the vehicle owners. During the course of the litigation, Grodzitsky narrowed the proposed class to include only individuals who leased or owned 2003-2008 Honda Pilots.

In her renewed motion for class certification, Grodzitsky described the asserted design defect as window regulators in Honda Pilot vehicles that were "insufficiently strong and insufficiently durable to withstand the forces required to perform [their] intended function." In support of her motion, Grodzitsky relied in part [**5]  on Akhavein's expert opinion. In his report, Akhavein, an engineer, explained that "[a] window regulator, including a Honda Pilot regulator, has a primary purpose of moving the window glass from where it is to where the user wants [it] to go and stay there." Akhavein conveyed that static loading, which occurs "when the load or force on an object is constant," and dynamic loading, involving changes in force on an object, may impact the efficacy of a window regulator. Akhavein opined that, "[b]ased on [his] comprehensive review of the failed Honda Pilot regulators, all appear to have failed at the ferrule-carrier interface, that is the portion of the carrier that supports the cable ferrule."

Full case includes Shepard's, Headnotes, Legal Analytics from Lex Machina, and more.