— Honda argues a tie rod fastener recall should be enough for a judge to dismiss a class action lawsuit filed by a Honda Civic owner who doesn't claim her vehicle had any problems.
South Carolina Honda Civic owner Shavonne Geddis-Wright filed the class action lawsuit which includes:
"All persons in the United States who purchased or leased any 2020-2021 Honda Civic, 2020-2023 Honda Ridgeline, 2021-2023 Honda Passport, 2021-2022 Honda Pilot, and 2020 Acura MDX vehicles."
Honda notes the plaintiff filed a nearly identical class action lawsuit in California then dismissed it before the court ruled on Honda’s motion to dismiss.
The automaker has filed a motion to dismiss by arguing the allegations in the lawsuit are a waste of time because the plaintiff and all affected customers have been satisfied through a tie rod fastener recall.
Honda says the tie rod fastener recall "provides complete relief for the injuries the plaintiff alleges."
In July 2023, Honda recalled 124,000 vehicles because the tie rod fasteners that connect the brake boosters and master cylinders could loosen. Honda told the government about 1% of the vehicles may be affected, but the problem could cause the brake master cylinder to separate from the booster assembly.
Honda said no crashes or injuries had been reported, but there had been two warranty claims by the time the recall was issued.
Shavonne Geddis-Wright purchased a 2020 Honda Civic in November 2020. She filed the Honda class action lawsuit for more than $5 million after the recall was announced, but she doesn't claim her vehicle ever had any problems with the brakes.
The class action talks about the Honda tie rod recall, and the plaintiff admits the recall, “includes a free fix and repair clause in which Defendant will repair and replace the faulty parts . . . .”
The plaintiff claims to take her Honda Civic to a dealership means taking a highway allegedly notable for “delays and even fatalities,” then she would have to wait at least 30 minutes for the repairs to be completed.
So although the plaintiff insists it would be costly and dangerous to drive to a Honda dealer for the free recall repairs for the very problem she sued about, Honda argues all of it is "speculative and implausible."
According to Honda, the plaintiff doesn't allege she had her vehicle repaired under the tie rod fastener recall, yet she asserts the recall is an “ineffective waste of time.”
She also complains that she would have to drive 60 miles to the South Carolina dealership and would have to wait at least 30 minutes for the repairs to be completed.
"Plaintiff even claims that she would need to have her car towed to the dealership, though, again, she does not allege her car is experiencing any problems. Finally, Plaintiff contends she is 'burdened with a vehicle that has been devalued by Defendant’s actions . . . .'” — Honda
Honda also references how the plaintiff complains she would need to pay $285 for her vehicle to be towed to a dealership, yet this is less than the $405 fee she paid to file the tie rod fastener class action lawsuit.
"These overblown concerns about the alleged 'hardship' of pursuing the recall are not the type of immediate threat or burden that would justify hearing this case now." — Honda
In Honda's motion to dismiss, the automaker argues the plaintiff is “asking the Court to deal in hypotheticals” because the lawsuit alleges the recall repairs won't work as intended even though her vehicle has never had any brake problems.
Honda says the class action lawsuit should not be in court, at least not until the plaintiff "availed herself of the remedies provided under the recall."
Honda also told the judge the plaintiff’s Magnuson-Moss Warranty Act claim must be dismissed because the Act only allows class action claims if there are 100 or more named plaintiffs. But in this case there is only one named plaintiff.
The Honda tie rod fastener recall class action lawsuit was filed in the U.S. District Court for the District of South Carolina (Orangeburg Division): Shavonne Geddis-Wright v. American Honda Motor Company, Inc.
The plaintiff is represented by Poulin | Willey | Anastopoulo.