Falco

ORDER DENYING CERTIFICATION OF INTERLOCUTORY APPEAL

Presently before the Court is Defendant Nissan Motor Co., Ltd.’s (“NML”) motion to certify an interlocutory appeal of the Court’s order of April 6, 2015. (Dkt. No. 118.) In that order, the Court held that it could exercise specific personal jurisdiction over NML, a foreign corporation, and that NML could be held liable under for certain California statutory causes of action: the Song-Beverly Consumer Warranty Act, the Consumer Legal Remedies Act (“CLRA”); and the Unfair Competition Law (“UCL”). (Dkt. No. 114.) NML seeks to certify two questions, which it phrases as follows:

(Defs.’ Mem. P. & A. at 1.)

I. BACKGROUND

Plaintiffs in this case sue both NML and its domestic subsidiary, Nissan North America (“NNA”), alleging that a particular timing chain system was prone to failure and put consumers at risk. (Dkt. No. 114 at 2.) NML admits that it had what it calls a “role in design decisions,” but it denies being involved in manufacturing, selling, marketing, or warranted the vehicles. (Defs.’ Mem. P. & A. at 1.) However, Plaintiff presented evidence, which the Court found credible, that Defendant’s “design” responsibility…