Motion for Writ in SMITH vs AMERICAN HONDA MOTOR COMPANY, INC., et al.| Trellis.Law

On March 22, 2024 a Complaint,Petition was filed involving a dispute between Christina Smith, and American Honda Motor Company, Inc., Does 1 - 10, for (Breach of Contract/Warranty) in the District Court of Sacramento County.

Preview
ELECTRONICALLY FILED
rior Court of California
county of Sacramento
03/22/2024
STRATEGIC LEGAL PRACTICES By: K. Lideros Deputy
A PROFESSIONAL CORPORATION
Tionna Carvalho (SBN 299010)
tcarvalho@slpattorney.com
Sanam Vaziri (SBN 177384)
(emailservices@slpattorney.com)
1888 Century Park East, 19th Floor
Los Angeles, CA 90067
Telephone: (310) 929-4900
Facsimile: (310) 943-3838

Attorneys for Plaintiff
CHRISTINA SMITH

SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA
10
FOR THE COUNTY OF SACRAMENTO
11

12
CHRISTINA SMITH, Case No.: 24CY005536
13

14 Plaintiff, Hon.
Dept.:
15 vs.
COMPLAINT FOR VIOLATION OF
16 AMERICAN HONDA MOTOR COMPANY. > STATUTORY OBLIGATIONS
INC.; and DOES | through 10, inclusive,
17
mi Defendants. JURY TRIAL DEMANDED
18

COMPLAINT; JURY TRIAL DEMANDED
Plaintiff alleges as follows:

PARTIES

1 As used in this Complaint, the word "Plaintiff shall refer to Plaintiff,

CHRISTINA SMITH.

2 Plaintiff is a resident of Sacramento County, California.

3 As used in this Complaint, the word "Defendant" shall refer to all Defendants

named in this Complaint.

4 Defendant AMERICAN HONDA MOTOR COMPANY, INC. ("HONDA" or

"Defendant") is a corporation organized and in existence under the laws of the State of

10 California and registered with the California Department of Corporations to conduct business

11 in California. At all times relevant herein, Defendant was engaged in the business of designing,

12 manufacturing, constructing, assembling, marketing, distributing, and selling automobiles and

13 other motor vehicles and motor vehicle components in Sacramento County, California.

14 5 Plaintiff is ignorant of the true names and capacities of the defendants sued

15 under the fictitious names DOES | to 10. They are sued pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure

16 section 474. When Plaintiff becomes aware of the true names and capacities of the Defendants

17 sued as DOES 1 to 10, Plaintiff will amend this Complaint to state their true names and

18 capacities.

19 FACTUAL BACKGROUND

20 6. On or about November 11, 2021, Plaintiff entered into a warranty contract with

21 Defendant, regarding a 2022 Honda Pilot, vehicle identification number

22 SFNYFSH53NB006284 ("Vehicle"), which was manufactured and or distributed by

23 Defendant.
7
24 The warranty contract contained various warranties, including but not limited

25 to the bumper-bumper warranty, powertrain warranty, emission warranty, etc. A true and

26 correct copy of the warranty contract is attached hereto as Exhibit A. The terms of the express

27 warranty are described in Exhibit A and are incorporated herein.

28 8 Pursuant to the Song-Beverly Consumer Warranty Act (the "Song-Beverly

1
COMPLAINT; JURY TRIAL DEMANDED
Act") Civil Code sections 1790 et seq. the Subject Vehicle constitutes "consumer goods" used

primarily for family or household purposes, and Plaintiff has used the vehicle primarily for

those purposes. Plaintiff is a "buyer" of consumer goods under the Act. Defendant HONDA is

"manufacturer" and/or "distributor" under the Act.

9 Plaintiff justifiably revokes acceptance of the Subject Vehicle under Civil Code,

section 1794, et seq. by filing this Complaint and/or did so prior to filing the instant Complaint.

10. These causes of action arise out of the warranty obligations of Defendant in

connection with a motor vehicle for which Defendant issued a written warranty.

ll. Defects and nonconformities to warranty manifested themselves within the

10 applicable express warranty period, including but not limited to, sensing defects, transmission

11 defects, engine defects; among other defects and non-conformities.

12 12. Said defects/nonconformities substantially impair the use, value, or safety of the

13 Vehicle.

14 13. The value of the Vehicle is worthless and/or de minimis.

15 14. Under the Song-Beverly Act, Defendant HONDA had an affirmative duty to

16 promptly offer to repurchase or replace the Subject Vehicle at the time if failed to conform the

17 Subject Vehicle to the terms of the express warranty after a reasonable number of repair

18 attempts. !

19 15. Defendant HONDA has failed to either promptly replace the Subject Vehicle or

20 to promptly make restitution in accordance with the Song-Beverly Act.

22
' "A manufacturer's duty to repurchase a vehicle does not depend on a consumer's request, but instead
23 ari as soon as the manufacturer fails to comply with the warranty within a reasonable time. (Krotin v. Porsche
Ca North America, Inc. (1995) 38 Cal.App.4th 294, 301-302, 45 Cal.Rptr.2d 10.) Chrysler performed the bridge
24 operation on Santana's vehicle in August 2014 with 30,262 miles on the odometer—within the three-year, 36,000
mile warranty. The internal e-mails demonstrating Chrysler's awareness of the safety risks inherent in the bridge
25 operation were sent in September 2013, and thus Chrysler was well aware of the problem when it performed the
bridge operation on Santana's vehicle. Thus, Chrysler's duty to repurchase or provide restitution arose prior to the
26 expiration of the three-year, 36,000 mile warranty. Moreover, although we do not have the actual five-year,
100,000 mile power train warranty in our record, Santana's expert testified that the no-start/stalling issues Santana
27 experienced were within the scope of the power train warranty, which was still active when Santana requested
repurchase in approximately January 2016, at 44,467 miles. Thus the premise of Chrysler's argument—that
28 Santana's request for repurchase was outside the relevant warranty—is not only irrelevant, but wrong." Santana v.
FCA US, LLC, 56 Cal. App. Sth 334, 270 Cal. Rptr. 3d 335 (2020).

2
COMPLAINT; JURY TRIAL DEMANDED
16. Under the Act, Plaintiff is entitled to reimbursement of the price paid for the

vehicle less that amount directly attributable to use by Plaintiff prior to the first presentation

to an authorized repair facility for a nonconformity.

17. Plaintiff is entitled to replacement or reimbursement pursuant to Civil Code,

section 1794, et seq.

18. Plaintiff is entitled to recover any "cover" damages under Civil Code, section

1794, et seq.

19. Plaintiffis entitled to recover all incidental and consequential damages pursuant

to Civil Code, section 1794 et seq.

10 20. Plaintiff suffered damages in a sum to be proven at trial in an amount that is not

11 less than $35,001.00.

12 21. Plaintiff is entitled to all incidental, consequential, and general damages

13 resulting from Defendants’ failure to comply with its obligations under the Song-Beverly Act.

14 TOLLING OF THE STATUTES OF LIMITATION

15 22. To the extent there are any statutes of limitation applicable to Plaintiff's

16 claims—including, without limitation, her express warranty, implied warranty, and fraudulent

17 omission claims—the running of the limitation periods has been tolled by, inter alia, the

18 following doctrines or rules: equitable tolling, the discovery rule, the fraudulent concealment

19 tule, equitable estoppel, the repair doctrine, and/or class action tolling (e.g., the American

20 Pipe rule), by the filing of Conti v. American Honda Motor Co., Inc, et al. (United States

21 District Court for the Central District of California, Case No. 2:19-cv-2160) on March 22,

22 2019.

23 23. Plaintiff discovered Defendant's wrongful conduct alleged herein shortly before

24 filing this Complaint as the Subject Vehicle continued to exhibit symptoms of defects

25 following Defendant's unsuccessful attempts to repair them. However, Defendant failed to

26 provide restitution pursuant to the Song-Beverly Consumer Warranty Act.

27 A. Class Action Tolling

28 24. Under the tolling rule articulated in Am. Pipe & Const. Co. v. Utah, 414 U.S.

3
COMPLAINT; JURY TRIAL DEMANDED
538, 94 S. Ct. 756, 38 L. Ed. 2d 713 (1974) (“American Pipe”), the filing of a class action

lawsuit in federal court tolls the statute of limitations for the claims of unnamed class members

until the class certification issue is resolved. In applying American Pipe tolling to California

cases, the California Supreme Court summarized the tolling rule derived from American Pipe

and stated that the statute of limitations is tolled from the time of commencement of the suit to

the time of denial of certification for all purported members of the class. Jolly v. Eli Lilly &

Co., 44 Cal.3d 1103, 1119 (1988). Tolling lasts from the day a class claim is asserted until the

day the suit is conclusively not a class action. Falk v. Children's Hosp. Los Angeles, 237 Cal.

App. 4th 1454, 1464 (2015).
10 25. The tolling of Plaintiff's individual statute of limitations encourages the

11 protection of efficiency and economy in litigation as promoted by the class action devise, so

12 that putative class members would not find it necessary to seek to intervene or to join

13 individually because of fear the class might never be certified or putative class members may

14 subsequently seek to request exclusion.

15 B Discovery Rule Tolling

16 26. Plaintiff had no way of knowing about Defendant’s deception with respect to

17 the defect until the defect manifested itself and Defendant was unable to repair it after a

18 reasonable number of repair attempts.

19 27. Within the time period of any applicable statutes of limitation, Plaintiff could

20 not have discovered through the exercise of reasonable diligence that Defendant were

21 concealing the defect and conduct complained of herein and concealing the companies’ true

22 position with respect to the defect.

23 28. Defendant was under a continuous duty to disclose to Plaintiff the true

24 character, quality, and nature of the Vehicles suffering from the defect, and the inevitable

25 repairs, costs, time, and monetary damage resulting from the defects.

26 29. Plaintiff did not discover, and did not know of, facts that would have caused a

27 reasonable person to suspect that Defendants had concealed information about the defect in

28 Defendants’ Vehicles prior to and at the time of sale and thereafter, which was discovered by

4
COMPLAINT; JURY TRIAL DEMANDED
Plaintiff shortly prior to the filing of this Complaint.

C. The Repair Doctrine

30. The statute of limitations is tolled by various unsuccessful attempts to repair the

vehicle.!
31. Additionally, the limitations period for warranty claims is tolled against a

defendant whenever that defendant claims that the defect is susceptible to repair and attempts

to repair the defect.”

32. Here, Defendant (and its dealership) undertook to perform various repair

measures. During the time in which Defendant represented to Plaintiff that the Subject Vehicle

10 was fixable and attempted to fix it, the warranty period may have thus been tolled.

11 D. Fraudulent Concealment Tolling (Estoppel)

12 33. Separately, the statute of limitations is equitably tolled due to Defendant’s

13 fraudulent conduct alleged herein.>

14 34. Defendant (and its agents, representatives, officers, directors, employees,

15 affiliates, and/or dealerships) concealed the defects, minimized the scope, cause, and dangers

16 of the defects with inadequate TSBs and/or Recalls, and refused to investigate, address, and

17 remedy the defects as it pertains.

18 35. By filing this Complaint, Plaintiff hereby revokes acceptance of the Subject

19 Vehicle yet again.

20 FIRST CAUSE OF ACTION

21 BY PLAINTIFF AGAINST DEFENDANT HONDA

22 VIOLATION OF SUBDIVISION (D) OF CIVIL CODE SECTION 1793.2

23 36. Plaintiff incorporates by reference the allegations contained in the paragraphs

24 set forth above.

25 37. Defendant and its representatives in this state have been unable to service or

26 repair the Vehicle to conform to the applicable express warranties after a reasonable number

27 of opportunities. Despite this fact, Defendant failed to promptly replace the Vehicle or make

28 restitution to Plaintiffas required by Civil Code section 1793.2, subdivision (d) and Civil Code

5
COMPLAINT; JURY TRIAL DEMANDED
section 1793.1, subdivision (a)(2).

38. Plaintiff
has been damaged by Defendant's failure to comply with its obligations

pursuant to Civil Code section 1793.2, subdivision (d) and Civil Code section 1793.1,

subdivision (a)(2), and therefore brings this cause of action pursuant to Civil Code section

1794.

39. Defendant's failure to comply with its obligations under Civil Code section

1793.2, subdivision (d) was willful, in that Defendant and its representative were aware that

they were unable to service or repair the Vehicle to conform to the applicable express

warranties after a reasonable number of repair attempts, yet Defendant failed and refused to

10 promptly replace the Vehicle or make restitution. Accordingly, Plaintiff is entitled to a civil

11 penalty of two times Plaintiff's actual damages pursuant to Civil Code section 1794,

12 subdivision (c).

13 40. Defendant does not maintain a qualified third-party dispute resolution process

14 which substantially complies with Civil Code section 1793.22. Accordingly, Plaintiff is

15 entitled to a civil penalty of two times Plaintiff's actual damages pursuant to Civil Code section

16 1794, subdivision (e).

17 41. Plaintiff seeks civil penalties pursuant to section 1794, subdivisions (c), and (e)

18 in the alternative and do not seek to cumulate civil penalties, as provided in Civil Code section

19 1794, subdivision (e).

20 SECOND CAUSE OF ACTION

21 BY PLAINTIFF AGAINST DEFENDANT HONDA

22 VIOLATION OF SUBDIVISION (B) OF CIVIL CODE SECTION 1793.2

23 42. Plaintiff incorporates by reference the allegations contained in the paragraphs

24 set forth above.

25 43. Although Plaintiff presented the Vehicle to Defendant's representative in this

26 state, Defendant and its representative failed to commence the service or repairs within a

27 reasonable time and failed to service or repair the Vehicle to conform to the applicable

28 warranties within 30 days, in violation of Civil Code section 1793.2, subdivision (b). Plaintiff

6
COMPLAINT; JURY TRIAL DEMANDED
did not extend the time for completion of repairs beyond the 30-day requirement.

44. Plaintiff
has been damaged by Defendant's failure to comply with its obligations

pursuant to Civil Code section 1793.2(b), and therefore brings this Cause of Action pursuant

to Civil Code section 1794.

45. Plaintiff has rightfully rejected and/or justifiably revoked acceptance of the

Vehicle and has exercised a right to cancel the purchase. By serving this Complaint, Plaintiff

does so again. Accordingly, Plaintiff seeks the remedies provided in California Civil Code

section 1794(b)(1), including the entire contract price. In the alternative, Plaintiff seeks the

remedies set forth in California Civil Code section 1794(b)(2), including the diminution in

10 value of the Vehicle resulting from its defects. Plaintiff believes that, at the present time, the

11 Vehicle's value is de minimis.

12 46. Defendant's failure to comply with its obligations under Civil Code section

13 1793.2(b) was willful, in that Defendant and its representative were aware that they were

14 obligated to service or repair the Vehicle to conform to the applicable express warranties

15 within 30 days, yet they failed to do so. Accordingly, Plaintiff is entitled to a civil penalty of

16 two times Plaintiff's actual damages pursuant to Civil Code section 1794(c).

17 THIRD CAUSE OF ACTION

18 BY PLAINTIFF AGAINST DEFENDANT HONDA

19 VIOLATION OF SUBDIVISION (A)(3) OF CIVIL CODE SECTION 1793.2

20 47. Plaintiff incorporates by reference the allegations contained in paragraphs set

21 forth above.

22 48. In violation of Civil Code section 1793.2, subdivision (a)(3), Defendant failed

23 to make available to its authorized service and repair facilities sufficient service literature and

24 replacement parts to effect repairs during the express warranty period. Plaintiff has been

25 damaged by Defendant's failure to comply with its obligations pursuant to Civil Code section

26 1793.2(a)(3), and therefore brings this Cause of Action pursuant to Civil Code section 1794.

27 49. Defendant's failure to comply with its obligations under Civil Code section

28 1793.2, subdivision (a)(3) was willful, in that Defendant knew of its obligation to provide

7
COMPLAINT; JURY TRIAL DEMANDED
literature and replacement parts sufficient to allow its repair facilities to effect repairs during

the warranty period, yet Defendant failed to take any action to correct its failure to comply

with the law. Accordingly, Plaintiff is entitled to a civil penalty of two times Plaintiff's actual

damages pursuant to Civil Code section 1794(c).

FOURTH CAUSE OF ACTION

BY PLAINTIFF AGAINST DEFENDANT HONDA

BREACH OF THE IMPLIED WARRANTY OF MERCHANTABILITY

(CIV. CODE, § 1791.1; § 1794; § 1795.5)
50. Plaintiff incorporates by reference the allegations contained in the paragraphs

10 set forth above.

11 S51. Pursuant to Civil Code section 1792, the sale of the Vehicle was accompanied

12 by Defendant's implied warranty of merchantability. Pursuant to Civil Code section 1791.1,

13 the duration of the implied warranty is coextensive in duration with the duration of the express

14 written warranty provided by Defendant, except that the duration is not to exceed one-year.

15 §2. Pursuant to Civil Code section 1791.1 (a), the implied warranty of

16 merchantability means and includes that the Vehicle will comply with each of the following

17 requirements: (1) The Vehicle will pass without objection in the trade under the contract

18 description; (2) The Vehicle is fit for the ordinary purposes for which such goods are used;

19 (3) The Vehicle is adequately contained, packaged, and labeled; and (4) The Vehicle will

20 conform to the promises or affirmations of fact made on the container or label.

21 53. At the time of sale, the subject Vehicle contained one or more latent defect(s)

22 set forth above. The existence of the said defect(s) constitutes a breach of the implied warranty

23 because the Vehicle (1) does not pass without objection in the trade under the contract

24 description, (2) is not fit for the ordinary purposes for which such goods are used, (3) is not

25 adequately contained, packaged, and labelled, and (4) does not conform to the promises or

26 affirmations of fact made on the container or label.

27 54. Plaintiff
has been damaged by Defendant's failure to comply with its obligations

28 under the implied warranty, and therefore brings this Cause of Action pursuant to Civil Code

8
COMPLAINT; JURY TRIAL DEMANDED
section 1794.

FIFTH CAUSE OF ACTION

BY PLAINTIFF AGAINST DEFENDANT HONDA

FRAUDULENT INDUCEMENT —- CONCEALMENT

55. Plaintiff incorporates by reference the allegations contained in the paragraphs

set forth above.

The Sensing Defect

56. Defendant designed, manufactured, tested, warranted, advertised, distributed,

sold, and leased 2022 Honda Pilot vehicles ("HONDA Vehicles"), including the Subject

10 Vehicle, which contain a defective computerized driver-assisting safety system, which includes

11 adaptive cruise control (which operates automatically to maintain a set distance from a vehicle

12 ahead), lane departure warnings and steering inputs, and autonomous braking (meant to avoid

13 front-end collisions by detecting vehicle speed and the speed of other vehicles and objects on the

14 road—and can automatically deploy the brakes to avoid a front-end collision). HONDA calls

15 this computerized driver-assisting safety system, "HONDA Sensing." HONDA Sensing relies

16 on a radar sensor (near the lower front bumper), an interior camera (near the rearview mirror),

17 along with computers and other technology. The autonomous braking system within HONDA

18 Sensing is called Collision Mitigation Braking System (or CMBS).”

19 57. The HONDA Sensing system suffers from a defect that causes the various

20 subsystems within it to malfunction dangerously while the vehicles are driven. This defect

21 impedes the systems' ability to reliably and accurately detect and appropriately respond to

23
? Honda describes the Honda Sensing system as inclusive of the following subsystems: 1) Adaptive
24 Cruise Control (ACC) with Low Speed Follow (LSF)*: Helps maintain a constant vehicle speed and a set
following interval behind a vehicle detected ahead of yours and, if the detected vehicle comes to a stop, can
25 decelerate and stop your vehicle. *if equipped 2) Lane Keeping Assist System (LKAS): Provides steering input
to help keep the vehicle in the middle of a detected lane and provides tactile and visual alerts if the vehicle is
26 detected drifting out of its lane. 3) Road Departure Mitigation (RDM) System: Alerts and helps to assist you
when the system detects a possibility of your vehicle unintentionally crossing over detected lane markings and/or
27 leaving the roadway altogether. 4) Collision Mitigation Braking System (CMBS): Can assist you when there is a
possibility of your vehicle colliding with a vehicle or a pedestrian detected in front of yours. (see,
28 https://owners.honda.com/utility/download?path=/static/pdfs/2018/Accord%20
Sedan/2018_ACCORD_4D_CMBS.pdf.)

9
COMPLAINT; JURY TRIAL DEMANDED
conditions on the roadway, causing malfunctions of the adaptive cruise control, the lane-

departure system, and — most severely — the CMBS (the Collision Mitigation Braking System).

Hereafter, this defect is referred to as the "Sensing Defect".

58. As a result of the Sensing Defect, HONDA Vehicles brake abruptly even though

there is nothing around that risks a collision, warning lights display without explanation, brakes

deploy seemingly randomly, and parts of the system like adaptive cruise control malfunction.

These malfunctions pose a safety risk because the vehicle may abruptly and without warning

halt in traffic, and trailing vehicles have to slam on the brakes or swerve dangerously out of their

lanes to avoid a crash. Additionally, the speed of the vehicle may abruptly change and warnings

10 may distract the driver. All of these malfunctions result in an increased risk of accident, injury,

11 and liability to third parties.

12 59. However, HONDA's response has been that no repairs are available.

13 Defendant's Knowledge of and Failure to Disclose the Sensing Defect

14 60. All acts of corporate employees as alleged herein were authorized or ratified by

15 an officer, director, or managing agent of the corporate employer.

16 61. HONDA knew of the Sensing Defect prior to sale of the Subject Vehicle to

17 Plaintiff, based on pre-production and post-production testing, numerous customer complaints,

18 warranty claims data compiled from HONDA's network of dealers, testing conducted by

19 HONDA in response to these complaints, as well as warranty repair and part replacements data

20 received by HONDA from HONDA's network of dealers, amongst other sources of internal

21 information.

22 62. Despite HONDA's awareness of the Sensing Defect, it has not found a solution

23 for it. Instead, HONDA simply replaces defective parts with equally defective parts or performs

24 ineffective software updates that do not fix the defect, thereby leaving consumers, and those they

25 share the road with, exposed to the safety risks attendant to the Sensing Defect (described above).

26 63. Examples of some of the complaints about the defective sensing systems in

27 HONDA Vehicles posted on the National Highway Transportation Safety Administration

28 include:

10
COMPLAINT; JURY TRIAL DEMANDED
"2017 Honda CR-V: Driving my 2017 CRV EX home from work. Stopped at
red light, foot on brake pedal. When the traffic signal turned green, I took my
foot off the brake pedal, and a message came up on the dashboard screen "brake
system failure". The engine was still running. I turned onto a side street and tried
to depress the brake pedal, but it was frozen and the vehicle would not stop. I
pulled into a parking lot and put the vehicle in 'park', and called the dealership
where I leased the vehicle. The sales rep suggested I turn off the engine and
restart it. I did that and all systems seemed to function properly. I later took my
CRV back to the dealer, and they did a diagnostic check but found no definitive
problem. The technician could only say the computer indicated something had
occurred but could say what, or why, or whether it might occur again. The
service advisor said they could not find a problem, and everything seemed ok,
and "have a nice day!" Now I am anxious when I drive wondering if, or when,
the brake system might fail again. Is it just my CRY, or has this issue been
reported by anyone else? This issue, should it occur again while driving in traffic,
could result in a serious crash situation. (NHTSA ID 10959870, Report Date:
10 March 9, 2017)
11
2017 Honda CR-V: Collision mitigation system is malfunctioning when driving
12 over metal plates: during construction, metal plates were put on the road where
I work. They do not stick out, area flush with the street, and are about 4 feet
13 wide. Every time I get close to drive straight over them (at probably 20-25
MPH), my car slams onto the brakes and comes to a complete stop. If anybody
14 were behind me, they would rearend me. A colleague of mine bought the same
15 car and has exactly the same problem. I had my car checked out at a Honda
dealer and they told me everything is working properly. The system cannot be
16 turned off permanently, so I have to turn it off manually every time | start the
car. This is very dangerous, as somebody will get hurt soon if somebody is
17 behind me and there is no reason I would come to such an abrupt stop. (NHTSA
ID 10985566, Report Date: May 14, 2017)
18

19 2019 Honda CR-V: The automatic vehicle braking system applied urgent brakes
on its own when no other car was in front, nor was any other obstacle in front of
20 our car. This is a huge concern because, the system applying automatic brakes
could have resulted in a collision. (NHTSA ID 112098532, Report Filed: June
21 30, 2019)
22
2018 Honda Accord: Three times during the first 1500 miles the collision
23 mitigation braking system has failed, disabling that feature and adaptive cruise
control, displaying a large diagnostic on the electronic dashboard and telling
24 me to see my dealer. In all cases I was driving in normal traffic on northern
California freeways at cruising speed (twice on 101, once on 80). The first two
25 failures occurred during daytime, the third at night. the weather in all cases was
normal (no rain, snow, mud, ...) When I visited the dealer after the first two
26
occurrences (when the car is turned off and then back on the condition clears)
27 the dealer found no diagnostic codes or other problems. then the problem
occurred a third time. The dealer and Honda corporate say they have no idea
28 how to fix it because of the absence of diagnostic codes. (NHTSA ID
11080670, Report Date: March 21, 2018)

ll
COMPLAINT; JURY TRIAL DEMANDED
2020 Honda Accord: I was driving on the highway on a sunny day with no
other cars around me, and nothing in front of me. I was driving approximately
55mph, and all of a sudden the collision mitigation braking system engaged
and almost brought the car to a full stop. The braking system engaged for
approximately 4 seconds, my foot remained on the gas because I was startled
and could not understand what was happening, and had no time to react. The
automatic braking system then released, and the car kept driving. (NHTSA ID
11321362, Report Filed: April 17, 2020)"

Defendant Concealed the Sensing Defect

64. While Defendant has been fully aware of the Sensing Defect affecting the Subject

Vehicle, Defendant and its agents concealed the existence and nature of the Defect from

10 Plaintiff at the time of purchase (and/or lease), repair, and thereafter. Specifically, Defendant

11 failed to disclose or concealed at and after the time of purchase or repair:

12 a. any and all known material defects or material nonconformity of the Subject

13 Vehicle, including the Sensing Defect;

14
that the Subject Vehicle, including its sensing system, was not in good
15
working order, was defective, and was not fit for the intended purposes;
16
that the Subject Vehicle and its sensing system was defective, despite the fact
17
that Defendant knew of such defects prior to release, at least as early as 2015;
18

19 and

20 that Defendant further learned of the widespread problems plaguing

21 consumers of vehicles equipped with the sensing system through alarming
22
failure rates, customer complaints, as well as through other internal sources,
23
as early as 2015.
24
65. To this day, Defendant still has not notified Plaintiff that the Vehicle suffers from
25
a systemic, latent safety defect that causes the sensing system to malfunction.
26
66. HONDA's New Vehicle Limited Warranty requires it to "repair or replace any
27
part that is defective in material or workmanship under normal use." But as countless consumers
28

12
COMPLAINT; JURY TRIAL DEMANDED
have reported, HONDA has been unable to repair these defects despite being given numerous

opportunities. In violation of this express warranty, and as evidenced by the many complaints or

repeat sensing system failures, Defendant either does nothing or merely replaces a defective part

with another defective part or performs ineffective software updates.

67. Defendant concealed, and continues to conceal, the fact that the HONDA

Vehicles, including the Subject Vehicle, contain the defective sensing systems, for which they

have no effective fix. Defendant also continues to conceal the fact that the software updates and

replacement components it provides in an false attempt to repair the defect are equally defective.

Therefore, Plaintiff did not discover and could not have discovered this defect through

10 reasonable diligence.

11 68. As a result of Defendant's concealment, inaction and silence, Plaintiff was

12 entirely unaware that Plaintiff purchased, and continued to drive, an unsafe and unreliable

13 vehicle. As Defendant knows, a reasonable person would consider the Sending Defect a

14 material fact and would not purchase or lease a vehicle equipped with a defective sensing

15 system, or would pay substantially less for the vehicle, if said defect was disclosed in advance.

16 69. Plaintiff is a reasonable consumer who interacted with sales representatives,

17 considered Defendant's advertisement, and/or other marketing materials concerning the

18 HONDA Vehicles prior to purchasing the Subject Vehicle. Had HONDA revealed the Sensing

19 Defect, Plaintiff would have been aware of it and would not have purchased the Subject

20 Vehicle.

21 Fraudulent Inducement — Concealment Elements Are Met

22 70. Defendant committed fraud by allowing the Subject Vehicle to be sold to

23 Plaintiff without disclosing that the Subject Vehicle and its sensing system was defective and

24 susceptible to malfunction of the computerized driver-assisting safety system ("sensing

25 system"), which includes adaptive cruise control (which operates automatically to maintain a set

26 distance from a vehicle ahead), lane departure warnings and steering inputs, and autonomous

27 braking (meant to avoid front-end collisions by detecting vehicle speed and the speed of other

28 vehicles and objects on the road—and can automatically deploy the brakes to avoid a front-end

13
COMPLAINT; JURY TRIAL DEMANDED
collision). As a result of the Sensing Defect, the various subsystems within the sensing system

malfunction dangerously while the vehicles are driven. This defect impedes the systems' ability

to reliably and accurately detect and appropriately respond to conditions on the roadway, causing

malfunctions of the adaptive cruise control, the lane-departure system, and — most severely — the

CMBS (the Collision Mitigation Braking System). Further, as a result of the Sensing Defect,

HONDA Vehicles brake abruptly even though there is nothing around that risks a collision,

warning lights display without explanation, brakes deploy seemingly randomly, and parts of the

system like adaptive cruise control malfunction. These malfunctions pose a safety risk because

the vehicle may abruptly and without warning halt in traffic, and trailing vehicles have to slam

10 on the brakes or swerve dangerously out of their lanes to avoid a crash. Additionally, the speed

11 of the vehicle may abruptly change and warnings may distract the driver. All of these

12 malfunctions result in an increased risk of accident, injury, and liability to third parties.

13 71. Additionally, because the sensing system may fail or malfunction at any time,

14 thereby startling the driver and putting the passengers' safety at risk, the defect makes HONDA

15 Vehicles, including the Subject Vehicle, unfit for the use for which they were intended in that

16 they cannot be relied upon as a safe and reliable means of transport.

17 72. Indeed, Plaintiff alleges that prior to the sale of the Subject Vehicle to Plaintiff,

18 Defendant knew that the Vehicle and its sensing system suffered from an inherent defect, was

19 defective, would fail prematurely, and was not suitable for its intended use.

20 23. HONDA was under a duty to Plaintiff to disclose the defective nature of the

21 Vehicle and its sensing system, its safety consequences and/or the associated repair costs

22 because:

23 a. Plaintiff is informed, believes, and thereon alleges that HONDA

24 acquired its knowledge of the Sensing Defect and its potential

25 consequences prior to Plaintiff acquiring the Vehicle, through

26 sources not available to consumers such as Plaintiff, including but

27 not limited to pre-production testing data, early consumer complaints

28 about the Sensing Defect made directly to HONDA and its network

14
COMPLAINT; JURY TRIAL DEMANDED
of dealers, aggregate warranty data compiled from HONDA's

network of dealers, testing conducted by HONDA in response to

these complaints, as well as warranty repair and part replacements

data received by HONDA from HONDA's network of dealers,

amongst other sources of internal information;

HONDA was in a superior position from various internal sources to

know (or should have known) the true state of facts about the

material defects of the sensing systems contained in HONDA

Vehicles; and

10 Plaintiff could not reasonably have been expected to learn or

11 discover of the Vehicle's Sensing Defect and its potential

12 consequences until well after Plaintiff purchased the Vehicle.

13 74. In failing to disclose the defects in the Vehicle's sensing system, HONDA has

14 knowingly and intentionally concealed material facts and breached its duty not to do so.

15 75. The facts concealed or not disclosed by HONDA to Plaintiff
are material in that

16 a reasonable person would have considered them to be important in deciding whether or not to

17 purchase the Vehicle. Had Plaintiff known that the Vehicle and its sensing system were

18 defective prior to or at the time of sale, he would not have purchased the Vehicle.

19 76. Plaintiff is a reasonable consumer who interacted with HONDA's sales

20 representatives and reviewed materials disseminated by HONDA concerning HONDA

21 Vehicles prior to purchasing the Subject Vehicle. Had Defendant disclosed the Sensing Defect,

22 a safety hazard, to its sales representatives and/or the consumer public, Plaintiff would have

23 been aware of it and would not have purchased the Subject Vehicle.

24 77. As a result of Defendant's misconduct, Plaintiff has suffered and will continue

25 to suffer actual damages. Plaintiff was harmed by purchasing a vehicle that Plaintiff would

26 not have leased and/or purchased had Plaintiff known the true facts about the Sensing Defect.

27 Furthermore, Plaintiff unknowingly exposed themselves to the risk of liability, accident and/or

28 injury as a result of Defendant's fraudulent concealment of the Sensing Defect.

15
COMPLAINT; JURY TRIAL DEMANDED
PRAYER

PLAINTIFF PRAYS for judgment against Defendant as follows:

For general, special and actual damages according to proof;

For restitution;

For any consequential and incidental damages;

For diminution in value;

For punitive damages;

For a civil penalty in the amount of two times Plaintiff's actual damages

pursuant to Civil Code section 1794, subdivision (c) or (e);

10 g For prejudgment interest at the legal rate;

11 For costs of the suit and Plaintiff's reasonable attorneys’ fees pursuant to

12 Civil Code section 1794, subdivision (d); and

13 For such other relief as the Court may deem proper.

14 DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL

15 Plaintiff hereby demands a jury trial on all causes of action asserted herein.

16 Dated: March 18, 2024 STRATEGIC LEGAL PRACTICES, APC

17 ( tor
BY:
18
“TIONNA CARVALHO
19 Attorneys for Plaintiff
CHRISTINA SMITH
20

16
COMPLAINT; JURY TRIAL DEMANDED
Exhibit A
In the United States:
American Honda Motor Co., Inc.
Honda Automobile Customer Service
Mail Stop CHI-5
1919 Torrance Boulevard
Torrance, CA 90501-2746
(800) 999-1009

In Puerto Rico and the U.S. Virgin Islands:
Vortex Motor Corp.
Bella International
PO. Box 190816
San Juan, Puerto Rico 00919-0816
(787) 620-7546
These warranties are given by (Q) HONDA Table of Contents
Introduction
Customer Satisfaction
Some Repairs May Be Covered Beyond the Limited Warranty.
A Quick Reference to Warranty Coverages...
Your Warranties in Detail
General Warranty Provisions.
New Vehicle Limited Warranty .
Powertrain Limited Warranty.
Federal Emissions Warranties 1
Federal Emissions System Coverage 17
California Emissions Warranties ..... 18
California Emissions System Coverage 26
Hybrid Powertrain Limited Warranty 27
High Voltage Battery Capacity Limited Warranty 28
Tires 29
Seat Belt Limited Warranty 30
Rust Perforation Limited Warranty 31
Accessory Limited Warranty... 32
Replacement/Remanufactured Parts Limited Warranty 34
Replacement 12-Volt Battery Limited Warranty. 35
Replacement Exhaust Components Lifetime Limited Warranty. 36
Your Responsibility
Operation and Maintenance of Your Honda 37
How to Get Warranty Service... 39
Warranty Coverage Outside the United States 39
Limitations and Disclaimers..

For full print and download access, please subscribe at https://www.trellis.law/.

Complaint,Petition: SMITH vs AMERICAN HONDA MOTOR COMPANY, INC., et al.

Preview

Case Info

Parties

Complaint,Petition: SMITH vs AMERICAN HONDA MOTOR COMPANY, INC., et al.

Preview

Related Topics

Case Info

Parties