Honda Window Defect Class Action Lawsuit Hits Setback

Top Class Actions’s website and social media posts use affiliate links. If you make a purchase using such links, we may receive a commission, but it will not result in any additional charges to you. Please review our Affiliate Link Disclosure for more information.

Last week, a California federal judge refused to certify a class action lawsuit related to allegations that the window regulator systems in certain American Honda Motor Co. Inc. vehicles were defective, finding that the plaintiffs failed to meet the commonality requirement for class certification.

An attorney for the plaintiffs commented Tuesday that the denial was a “brief setback,” and indicated that plaintiffs will continue discovery on the Honda window parts to satisfy the judge’s concerns.

The Honda window defect class action lawsuit was initially filed in February 2012, and alleged that Honda sold vehicles with defective window regulator systems that cause the windows to suddenly drop into the door frame and break or become stuck in the fully-open position. More than 100 Honda vehicle models and model-year variations are alleged to have the defect.

The class action lawsuit asserted that Honda knew about the alleged defect and actively concealed it from the public. As a result, the plaintiffs say they incurred out-of-pocket costs to repair the window regulator defect. In June 2013, Honda’s motion to dismiss the class action lawsuit was denied.

In the Feb. 19 motion to deny class certification, U.S. District Judge Stephen Wilson indicated that the window parts in the various Honda vehicles did not appear to be made with the same materials. Because the plaintiffs did not refute Honda’s expert testimony that the parts use different materials, the plaintiffs cannot show that there is sufficient commonality to warrant class action lawsuit status. However, the judge will allow the plaintiffs to conduct additional discovery about the window parts.

Judge Wilson also pointed out other flaws in the plaintiffs’ claims, finding that the common issues among the potential Class Members do not predominate over their individual issues and that state consumer protection laws have too much variation to warrant a nationwide class. The judge referred to Mazza v. American Honda Motor Co. Inc., a 2012 decision by the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals, which involved an Acrua braking defect class action lawsuit filed against Honda.

“As in Mazza, the vehicle sales and the resulting regulator defects in the instant case occurred in multiple jurisdictions outside of California, all of which have reached their own unique balance between consumer protection and competing interests,” Judge Wilson wrote. “As such, each jurisdiction has an interest in applying its own laws.”

Judge Wilson found that there were no material differences between the facts of Mazza, which was also filed in California, and the Honda window defect lawsuit. “As such, the Court finds that each Class Member’s consumer protection claim should be governed by the consumer protection laws of the jurisdiction in which the transaction took place,” he wrote.

The judge declined to consider Honda’s motion for summary judgment, finding that many of the car company’s arguments were premature and require further discovery.

The plaintiffs are represented by Jonathan Selbin, Kristen Law-Sagafi, Mark Chalos and Annika Martin of Lieff Cabraser Heimann & Bernstein LLP; Marc Godino of Glancy Binkow & Goldberg LLP; Jon Tostrud of Tostrud Law Group PC; and Barton Goplerud of Hudson Mallaney Shindler & Anderson PC.

The Honda Window Defect Class Action Lawsuit is Groditsky, et al. v. American Honda Motor Co. Inc., Case No. 2:12-cv-01142, in the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California.