— Nissan argues a LEAF class action lawsuit doesn't hold up and should be thrown out of a California court.
The Nissan LEAF class action alleges a Level 3 quick charge recall hasn't helped customers.
The original class action included customers in Oregon, but now the lawsuit includes 2019-2022 Nissan LEAF electric vehicles in California only.
Nissan announced a LEAF recall in 2024 and warned owners not to use Level 3 quick charging because lithium-ion battery fires could occur. That recall included 2019-2020 LEAF electric cars equipped with Level 3 quick charge ports, and Nissan estimated about 1% of the vehicles could be affected.
But a year later Nissan expanded the LEAF recall to include 2021-2022 models.
According to the class action lawsuit, Nissan LEAF drivers have been left without Level 3 quick charging and their vehicles are purportedly unfit for their intended purpose.
The lawsuit also claims Nissan knew the LEAF batteries could catch fire from using quick charging and supposedly knew it before the LEAFs were first sold. The six plaintiffs who sued claim Nissan concealed and covered up the defects to force consumers to drive dangerous vehicles.
California customers have also been forced to wait for repairs as their LEAF electric vehicles are "plagued with battery and charging issues."
Motion to Dismiss the Nissan LEAF Class Action
Nissan argues the plaintiffs sued for more than $5 million but none claim their Nissan LEAFs had any problems at all. And the plaintiffs don't allege they had any problems with using Level 1 or Level 2 charging to power their vehicles.
"None of the Plaintiffs plead any fire or other untoward event or report any damage to their vehicles, their components, or to any other property in connection with rapid charging, either before or after receiving their [recall] letter. In fact, Plaintiffs do not even show that their vehicles have any defect whatsoever." — Nissan
Additionally, Nissan told the judge certain claims must be dismissed because the California implied warranty applies only to new vehicles, and five of the six plaintiffs bought their vehicles used.
And while each plaintiff contends they relied upon the representations of Nissan, no plaintiff names the source or location of the alleged misrepresentation. The plaintiffs also allegedly fail to explain the contents of the supposed misrepresentations by Nissan.
The motion to dismiss also says the plaintiffs do not allege their LEAFs have been rendered inoperable or that their vehicles have been unavailable for any period of time.
According to Nissan, a vehicle is “fit” for its ordinary purpose so long as it “provides for a minimum level of quality and is not unsafe to operate. [W]here a car can provide safe, reliable transportation, it is generally considered merchantable.”
Nissan also argues just because one level of charging is temporarily missing doesn't mean the Nissan LEAF doesn't still have two other charging methods, and a missing function allegedly doesn't mean a LEAF cannot provide safe transportation.
Nissan's motion also insists the plaintiffs plead no facts showing Nissan knew about any Level 3 quick charging problems before the LEAFs were first sold.
The Nissan LEAF class action lawsuit includes these six California residents named as plaintiffs.
- Grace Proudfoot / 2019 Nissan LEAF
- Paul Merritt / 2020 Nissan LEAF
- Alexis Murray-Forbes / 2019 Nissan LEAF
- Jennifer Hogan / 2019 Nissan LEAF
- Laura Goldberger / 2019 Nissan LEAF
- Jona Andrews-Stocker / 2019 Nissan LEAF
The Nissan LEAF class action lawsuit was filed in the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California: Proudfoot, et al., v. Nissan North America, Inc., et al.
The plaintiffs are represented by Singleton Schreiber, LLP, the Law Offices of David R. Greifinger, and the Law Offices of Howard A. Goldstein.