David Gelber v. Toyota Motor Corp

MEMORANDUM

David Gelber appeals the district court’s grant of summary judgement in favor of the defendants on claims under the California Consumer Legal Remedies Act, Cal. Civ. Code § 1750 (CLRA), the California Unfair Competition Law, Cal. Bus. & Prof. Code § 17200 (UCL), and breach of implied warranty under the Song-Beverly Consumer Warranty Act, Cal. Civ. Code § 1794 . Gelber also appeals the district court’s denial of class certification of all consumers who “purchased or leased a [Gen II] Prius Vehicle from an authorized Toyota dealer in the State of California and who currently own or lease such Prius vehiclefs]” under Fed. R. Civ. P. (23)(b)(3). We have jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1291 . We affirm the district court’s grant of summary judgment, and its denial of class certification.

1. To prevail on his theories under the CLRA, the UCL, and the Song-Beverly Act in this case, Gelber needed to establish that the Gen II Prius contained a specific defect that rendered the product unsafe. See Daugherty v. Am. Honda Motor Co., 144 Cal.App.4th 824 , 51 Cal.Rptr.3d 118, 127 (2006) (explaining that under the CLRA, any supposed defect must pose “safety concerns”); Wilson…