American Honda Motor Co., Inc. v. Allen
600 F.3d 813 (2010)
Rule of Law:
When an expert's report or testimony is critical to class certification, a district court must perform a full Daubert analysis and conclusively rule on any challenge to the expert's reliability prior to ruling on the class certification motion.
Facts:
- Plaintiffs purchased Honda Gold Wing GL1800 motorcycles.
- Plaintiffs alleged the motorcycles suffered from a design defect that caused excessive side-to-side oscillation of the front steering assembly, a phenomenon known as "wobble."
- To support their claims, Plaintiffs retained an expert, Mark Ezra, who devised his own standard for what constitutes an acceptable level of "wobble decay."
- Ezra's standard, which was not a recognized industry or government standard, was based on his assumption about human reaction time.
- Ezra tested a single used GL1800 motorcycle that had been serviced to factory condition.
- Based on this single test, Ezra concluded the motorcycle failed his standard and that the entire line of GL1800 motorcycles was defective.
- Ezra opined that the defect could be remedied by replacing the motorcycle's factory-installed ball bearings with tapered ones.
Procedural Posture:
- Purchasers of Honda motorcycles (Plaintiffs) sued American Honda Motor Company (Honda) in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Illinois, a federal trial court.
- Plaintiffs moved for class certification pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23(b)(3), relying heavily on an expert report from Mark Ezra.
- Honda filed a motion to strike Ezra's report as unreliable under Daubert v. Merrell Dow Pharms., Inc.
- The district court expressed 'definite reservations' about Ezra's report but denied Honda's motion to strike 'without prejudice,' declining to exclude it at that stage.
- The district court then granted Plaintiffs' motion for class certification in part.
- Honda petitioned the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit for leave to appeal the class certification order, which the appellate court granted.
Premium Content
Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief
You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture
Issue:
Does a district court abuse its discretion by granting class certification without first conclusively ruling on the admissibility of an expert's testimony when that testimony is critical to satisfying the requirements of Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23?
Opinions:
Majority - Per Curiam
Yes. A district court abuses its discretion by certifying a class without first conclusively determining the admissibility of expert testimony that is essential for certification. The court reasoned that under its precedent in Szabo and West, a district court must make all necessary factual and legal inquiries to ensure Rule 23's requirements are met before certification, even if those inquiries overlap with the merits of the case. Deferring a critical Daubert ruling is akin to the impermissible 'provisional' certification approach rejected in Szabo, as it allows a court to 'duck hard questions.' Because the plaintiffs' entire theory of a common defect suitable for class treatment rested on Ezra's testimony, the district court was required to act as a 'gatekeeper' and squarely decide its admissibility before certifying the class. The court's expression of 'definite reservations' while denying Honda's motion to exclude 'without prejudice' was an abdication of this duty and an abuse of discretion.
Analysis:
This decision solidifies the rule in the Seventh Circuit that a rigorous Daubert analysis is a mandatory prerequisite to class certification when expert testimony is the lynchpin of the certification argument. It prevents district courts from postponing critical evidentiary rulings and certifying classes based on potentially inadmissible expert evidence. This raises the evidentiary bar for plaintiffs at the class certification stage, requiring them to present scientifically reliable expert proof early in the litigation to demonstrate that common issues predominate. The ruling empowers defendants to defeat class certification by challenging the reliability of the plaintiffs' expert evidence at the outset of the case.
Gunnerbot
AI-powered case assistant
Loaded: American Honda Motor Co., Inc. v. Allen (2010)
Try: "What was the holding?" or "Explain the dissent"