backOn May 14, in Fausto v. American Honda Motor Co., Inc., No. 1:25-cv-142 (S.D. Ohio), Judge Matthew W. McFarland granted Honda’s motion to dismiss Plaintiff Jennifer Fausto's putative class action, which arose from alleged defects in the infotainment systems of Honda's 2020-2022 Pilot, Passport, and Odyssey vehicles.
Fausto filed her First Amended Complaint in the Central District of California on November 18, 2024, and we moved for dismissal shortly thereafter. Following submission of the parties' joint brief, the Court found that venue was improper and transferred the case to the Southern District of Ohio.
We sought dismissal of all five of Fausto's claims, which included: (1) common-law fraudulent concealment; (2) common-law unjust enrichment; (3) violations of the Ohio Consumer Sales Practice Act; (4) breach of express warranty under Ohio Revised Code § 1302.26; and (5) breach of the implied warranty of merchantability under Ohio Revised Code § 1302.27.
We argued that Fausto lacked Article III standing because alleged overpayment for the Class Vehicles and loss in value do not constitute actual or imminent injuries. However, the Sixth Circuit is less friendly to us on that point, and the dispositive issue was our prudential mootness argument. We also contended that the injunction Fausto requested would serve no purpose, as Honda already provided a free, effective recall repair to all putative class members. Further, the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration has continuing jurisdiction and authority to require further measures if, contrary to all available data, the recall repair does not fully resolve the problems.
The Court found that it could fashion no other remedy—equitable or otherwise—in light of the NHTSA Recall, and that Fausto failed to allege a cognizable danger that the Recall would fail to cure.
The King and Spalding team included Liv Kiser, Chris Mitchell, and Germaine Habell.