Auto manufacturer Toyota has suffered devastating blows over the past year for faulty equipment and injuries sustained as a result of spontaneous acceleration. Many plaintiffs having suffered identical injuries have sought to join together in a class action lawsuit to sue the vehicle giant together. However, Judge Selna of the U.S. District Court in California ruled on Wednesday that California law may not be available for every potential plaintiff if he lived or purchased the vehicle in another state. This ruling could significantly reduce the size of the class resulting in a decreased bargaining position for the plaintiffs against the manufacturing conglomerate.
A class action lawsuit is one in which all plaintiffs in the case suffered virtually identical personal injuries at the hands of the same defendant. The injuries must have taken place within the same general time frame for every party and the questions of law and fact must the same for each plaintiff. If any member of the class has a different injury, legal claim or factual scenario, he may not join the class. A judge must give plaintiffs class action status in order for them to continue as a group. If class action status is not given for one reason or another, plaintiffs are always free to sue individually.
The complex aspect of many class actions involves the venue and jurisdiction within which the injuries took place. In the Toyota lawsuits, plaintiffs decided to sue in California because of California’s favorable laws, but many plaintiffs reside and purchased their vehicles in other states. The conflict at hand in last Wednesday’s ruling was whether the individuals having lived and purchased outside California can still access California law in the class action case.
As of now, the plaintiffs filing against Toyota are part of what is known as “multi-district litigation” or MDL. This differs from a class action in that all claims are still being filed individually on behalf of each unique plaintiff but due to the factual and legal similarities of the claims, the plaintiffs are filing in a consolidated manner to effectuate judicial economy and efficiency. It was the hope of plaintiffs to further consolidate the claims from mere multi-district litigation to a full-blown class action. However, Judge Selna opined that it would run afoul of the purposes of multi-district litigation to allow plaintiffs to “forum shop” and choose states like California to file in as opposed to their home state simply because the laws are more favorable.
Toyota praised the ruling and declared that this sort of “procedural engineering” is contrary to established law and should not be allowed. Toyota further proclaimed that the ruling protects its substantive rights.
More than 70% of all plaintiffs in the case are residents of states other than California.
