DTO Prevails as Court Denies Plaintiffs’ Motion for Attorneys’ Fees in Class Action Against Honda

DTO Law secured a significant victory on behalf of its client, American Honda, in a class action lawsuit filed in the Central District of California concerning alleged defects in certain Honda Ridgeline vehicles.

The plaintiffs in MacTavish et al v. American Honda Motor Co., Inc. sought to represent a class of owners of 2017-2019 Ridgeline vehicles and alleged a defective tailgate wiring harness configuration caused malfunctions in the backup camera system. Early in the litigation, Honda prevailed on several motions to dismiss, which resulted in the dismissal of a subset of named plaintiffs and several claims.  Ultimately, Plaintiffs were able to move forward with a Third Amended Complaint with trimmed-down claims and narrower state subclasses.

During the course of the litigation, for reasons unrelated to the litigation, a recall of the affected vehicles was issued, rendering Plaintiffs’ claims moot.  Thereafter, Plaintiffs filed an attorneys’ fees motion pursuant to CCP 1021.5, arguing Plaintiffs were entitled to recover attorneys’ fees, costs, and service awards under the theory the lawsuit was a “catalyst” for Honda’s recall.

In its ruling, the court denied Plaintiffs’ motion. Specifically, the court found California law did not apply, as the Plaintiffs were not California residents, did not pursue California claims, and had not purchased their vehicles in the state of California. Additionally, the court found insufficient evidence to support Plaintiffs’ argument that their lawsuit significantly contributed to the recall. The decision is one of the few in which a court denied catalyst fees in the automotive context.  Following the ruling on Plaintiffs’ motion, all remaining claims were voluntarily dismissed.

DTO’s lead partner on the matter, Will Delgado, expressed satisfaction with the court’s ruling, stating, “While it may have seemed there was case law was against us, the court’s decision reinforced a very basic notion: The facts matter.  We are extraordinarily proud of our defense in this case, spearheaded by Justin Goodwin, and we are pleased the court concluded there were no facts supporting a catalyst award.”