Quackenbush

Quackenbush v. American Honda Motor Company, Inc.

Good Law
United States District Court, Northern District of CaliforniaDecember 27, 20213:20-cv-05599California6,488 words

Opinion

Trial Court Opinion

INTRODUCTION

19 In this automobile products-liability class action, named plaintiffs seek to certify a class of 20 vehicle purchasers, appoint three class representatives, and appoint class counsel. One 21 defendant opposes and moves to exclude plaintiffs’ expert. To the extent stated, a class will be 22 CERTIFIED. The Daubert motion is DENIED.

STATEMENT

24 The undisputed facts follow. In 2008, prior to our putative class period, certain vehicles 25 produced by defendant American Honda Motor Company, Inc. began to rattle on start up. 26 Honda launched an investigation. Honda eventually fingered the VTC Actuator 14310-R44-

A01 (R44).

Actuators consist of a rotor that moves an engine’s tension chain, not unlike a sprocket moving a chain on a bicycle. The tension chain in turn moves the camshaft, which opens and closes valves to allow air and fuel to enter the engine. The tension chain is not the only chain powering an engine. In the relevant vehicles, rotation of the “serpentine belt” moves other peripheral device such as alternators, air pumps, and water pumps. Actuators like the R44 aim to maximize fuel…

Sign in to read the full opinion

Create a free account to read the complete opinion text, citation history, and good-law status for this case.