Stockinger v. Toyota Motor Sales, U.S.A., Inc.

Stockinger v. Toyota Motor Sales, U.S.A., Inc.

Opinion

Order DENYING Motion for Leave to File Renewed Motion for Class Certification (Dkt. 268)

Before the Court is Plaintiffs Elizabeth Stockinger, Paul Stockinger, Gailyn Kennedy, Eliezer Casper, Norman Beil, Basudeb Dey, and Yvette Alley's (collectively, "Plaintiffs") Motion for Leave to File a Renewed Motion for Class Certification. (Dkt. 268, "Motion"). Defendant Toyota Motor Sales, U.S.A., Inc. ("Defendant") filed its Opposition on November 2, 2020 (Dkt. 280), and Plaintiffs replied on November 16, 2020 (Dkt. 281).

After considering all the papers filed in support of, and in opposition to, the Motion, the Court deems this matter appropriate for resolution without a hearing pursuant to Local Rule 7-15. The Court DENIES the Motion.

I. BACKGROUND

Plaintiffs filed this lawsuit over three years ago, and the parties are familiar with its history and facts. Plaintiffs [*4]  are purchasers of Defendant's cars, crossovers, and sports utility vehicles who allege their vehicles' heating, ventilation, and air conditioning ("HVAC") systems emitted "noxious and foul odors" and blew airborne mold into the passenger compartments of their vehicles. (Dkt. 204-1, at 11; Dkt. 268-1, at 5).

On October 23, 2017, this Court entered a Scheduling Order after conferring with the parties regarding phased discovery as it relates to the motion for class certification. (Dkt. 65)¹ . In the Scheduling Order, the Court set the initial deadline to file a motion for class certification for September 24, 2018. (Id.) On April 30, 2018, the parties requested an amendment to the Scheduling Order, and specifically an extension of the class certification motion deadline from September 24, 2018 to December 10, 2018. (Dkt. 93). On May 3, 2020, the Court granted the parties' request. (Dkt. 94). Thereafter, On December 12, 2018, Defendants filed a motion for summary judgment. (Dkt. 140). The Court granted Defendants' motion in part on March 8, 2019, and set April 22, 2019, as Plaintiffs' new deadline to file a motion for class certification. (Dkt. 170). Four days before that deadline, on April [*5]  18, 2019, Plaintiff filed an Ex Parte Application seeking to extend the deadline to file the class certification motion from April 22, 2019 to September 13, 2019. (Dkt. 182). The Court ordered a scheduling conference to discuss Plaintiffs' request (Dkt. 183), and on April 29, 2019, the Court set September 13, 2019, as Plaintiffs' last date to file a motion for class certification. (Dkt. 187).

On September 13, 2019, Plaintiffs filed their motion for class certification, seeking to certify ten different classes that encompassed 84 distinct vehicle models, including the 2010-2015 Toyota Prius. (Dkt. 202; Dkt. 265, at 2-5). The parties also filed several motions to exclude expert opinions in connection with the class certification motion. (Dkts. 231-235). On March 3, 2020, the Court issued a detailed Order denying Plaintiffs' motion for numerous reasons, including Plaintiffs' failure to satisfy both the commonality and predominance standards as a result of variances in HVAC design, speculative expert testimony, and material differences in various state laws. (Dkt. 265). The Court's Order did not contemplate further motions for class certification.

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