MacDougall v. Am. Honda Motor Co.

MacDougall v. Am. Honda Motor Co.

Opinion

CIVIL MINUTES—GENERAL

Proceedings: Order (1) GRANTING Defendants' Motion to Strike the Expert Testimony of Stefan Boedeker; (2) DENYING AS MOOT Defendants' Motion to Strike the Expert Testimony of Robert Parker; (3) GRANTING Defendants' Motion for Summary Judgment; (4) DENYING AS MOOT Plaintiffs' Motion for Class Certification; and (5) VACATING the September 14, 2020 Hearing (IN CHAMBERS)

Before the Court are Defendants American Honda Motor Co., Inc. ("AHM") and Honda North America, Inc.'s ("HNA," and collectively with AHM, "Defendants") motion for summary [*3]  judgment pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure ("Rule") 56 ("MSJ," Dkt. No. 152) and motions to strike expert testimony ("MTS," Dkt. No. 151; "2d MTS," Dkt. No. 166). Also before the Court is Plaintiffs Dennis MacDougall, Ray Seow, Prabhanjan Kavuri, Richard Frick, Joseph Ryan Parker and Bryan Lentz's ("Plaintiffs") motion for class certification pursuant to Rule 23. ("MCC," Dkt. No. 147.) The Court finds these matters appropriate for resolution without a hearing. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 78; L.R. 7-15. After considering all papers filed in support of and in opposition to the matters, the Court GRANTS the 2d MTS, DENIES the MTS AS MOOT, GRANTS the MSJ, and DENIES the MCC AS MOOT. The hearing scheduled for September 14, 2020 is VACATED.

I. BACKGROUND

A. Procedural Background

Plaintiffs filed this action against Defendants on June 21, 2017. ("Complaint," Dkt. No. 1.) In the Complaint, Plaintiffs allege twelve causes of action: (1) breach of express warranty; (2) breach of implied warranty of merchantability; (3) violations of the Magnuson-Moss Warranty Act ("MMWA"); (4) violations of the California Song-Beverly Consumer Warranty Act; (5) violations of Pennsylvania's Unfair Trade Practices and Consumer Protection Law; (6) violations of California's Consumer Legal Remedies Act [*4] ; (7) violations of California's Unfair Competition Law; (8) violations of New Jersey's Consumer Fraud Act; (9) violations of Florida's Deceptive and Unfair Trade Practices Act; (10) equitable injunctive and declaratory relief; (11) declaratory relief under the Declaratory Judgment Act; and (12) unjust enrichment. (Id.)

On December 4, 2017, U.S. District Judge Andrew J. Guilford granted-in-part and denied-in-part Defendants' motion to dismiss the Complaint. ("Order to Dismiss," Dkt. No. 53.) The Order to Dismiss dismissed several theories of liability, including the entirety of Plaintiffs' MMWA claim, with leave to amend. (Id. at 13.) Plaintiffs did not file an amended complaint. On December 26, 2017, Defendants answered the Complaint. ("Answer," Dkt. No. 57.) On February 5, 2020, this matter was reassigned from Judge Guilford to this Court. (Dkt. No. 225.)

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