Products Liability Law Reporter

The Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals held that a district court correctly decided to certify state-based classes in a suit alleging that Nissan North America failed to disclose an alleged defect in the design of panoramic sunroofs used in several Nissan vehicle models.

Various plaintiffs alleged that Nissan North America violated an implied warranty and breached the consumer protection laws of several states in failing to disclose an alleged defect in the design of its panoramic sunroofs, which were used in several Nissan vehicle models.

A federal district court issued an order certifying state-based classes. The court concluded that there were common questions that could be answered in a way that held across the whole class and that resolution of these questions predominated over any individual inquiries. In its decision, the court cited the nature of the alleged defect, Nissan’s knowledge or lack of knowledge about the alleged defect, whether a reasonable consumer would find the omission of the defect material, whether the vehicles violated the implied warranty of merchantability, and the extent to which Nissan’s nondisclosure constituted concealment. Nissan filed an interlocutory appeal.

Affirming, the Ninth Circuit found that the district court did not abuse its discretion in finding several common questions of law and fact. Citing case law, the court rejected the defense argument pointing to a lack of admissible evidence of an alleged common design defect increasing the panoramic sunroofs’ likelihood of spontaneously shattering. Proof of defect is not required to establish class certification, the court found, noting that such proof constitutes a merits inquiry. The court also noted that the plaintiffs’ claims were susceptible to common proof and that the plaintiffs may rely on an unexecuted damages model so long as it would be able to calculate damages reliably and in a manner common to the class.

The court rejected the defense argument that the district court erred by certifying a class in which the vast majority of members had never had a broken panoramic sunroof. The plaintiffs’ claim is that class members spent money they would not have spent absent Nissan’s actions. Thus, all class members who allegedly overpaid for panoramic sunroofs have the same injury by way of the same allegedly defective design, the court said.

Citation: Johnson v. Nissan N. Am., Inc., 2024 WL 4784367 (9th Cir. Nov. 14, 2024).

Plaintiff counsel: AAJ member Matthew Wessler, Boston; AAJ members Adam Edwards, William Ladnier, Mark Silvey, and Greg Coleman, all of Knoxville, Tenn.; and AAJ member William Breit, Garden City, N.Y.