Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-4_14-cv-03612/USCOURTS-cand-4_14-cv-03612-2/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Greg Battaglia
Plaintiff
Hyundai Motor America
Defendant
Hyundai Motor Company
Defendant
Oren Jaffe
Plaintiff
Ann Mancuso
Plaintiff
Julia Reniger
Plaintiff
Lucia Saitta
Plaintiff

Document Text:

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

United 

States District 

Court 

For the Northern District of California 

 

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 

JULIA RENIGER, GREG BATTAGLIA, 

OREN JAFFE, LUCIA SAITTA, and ANN 

MANCUSO, individually and on 

behalf of all others similarly 

situated, 

 Plaintiffs, 

 v. 

HYUNDAI MOTOR AMERICA, a 

California corporation, and 

HYUNDAI MOTOR COMPANY, a foreign 

corporation, 

 Defendants. 

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

Case No. 14-3612 SC 

ORDER RE: SUPPLEMENTAL 

BRIEFING 

 Now before the Court are two motions in this putative class 

action alleging consumer protection, fraud, and warranty claims 

related to alleged low-speed stalling of Hyundai Santa Fe vehicles. 

ECF Nos. 31 ("Mot. to Strike), 33 ("MTD"). While the motions are 

fully briefed,1 the Court finds supplemental briefing on two issues 

is necessary prior to ruling on the motions. 

/// 

 

1

 ECF Nos. 35 ("MTD Opp'n"), 36 "Mot. to Strike Opp'n"), 39 ("MTD 

Reply"), 40 ("Mot. to Strike Reply"). 

Case 4:14-cv-03612-CW Document 45 Filed 06/12/15 Page 1 of 3
2 

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

United 

States District 

Court

For the Northern District of California 

First, Hyundai's moves to dismiss four of the five named 

Plaintiffs for lack of standing under Federal Rule of Civil 

Procedure 12(b)(1). However, Hyundai does not challenge the 

standing of the fifth named plaintiff, Jaffe, perhaps because his 

allegations seemingly satisfy the standing requirements. See SAC 

¶¶ 33, 54-59. This is significant, because the parties have 

overlooked that "[i]n a class action, standing is satisfied if at 

least one named plaintiff meets the requirements." See Lowden v. 

T-Mobile USA, Inc., 512 F.3d 1213, 1215 n.1 (9th Cir. 2008); see 

also Ellis v. Costco Wholesale Corp., 657 F.3d 970, 979 (9th Cir. 

2011) (noting that "[b]ecause only one named Plaintiff must meet 

the standing requirements, the district court did not err in 

finding that Plaintiffs have standing."). 

Similarly, Hyundai argues, based on the California Court of 

Appeal's decision in LiMandri v. Judkins, 52 Cal. App. 4th 326, 

336-37 (1997) that a duty to disclose presupposes either a 

fiduciary relationship or some sort of transaction between the 

parties. However, other cases suggest that "a duty to disclose may 

arise if a plaintiff alleges 'physical injury or . . . safety 

concerns posed by the defect.'" Mui Ho v. Toyota Motor Corp., 931 

F. Supp. 2d 987, 997 (N.D. Cal. 2013). Here, although Plaintiffs 

did not press it in their opposition, the Complaint contains 

numerous allegations that the alleged stalling defect is a safety 

issue. See SAC at ¶¶ 17, 48-50, 78, 87-89. Moreover, in at least 

one case involving a concealed safety risk, the Court of Appeal 

reversed the dismissal of a fraudulent concealment claim against 19 

chemical companies even though those companies only contracted with 

the plaintiffs' decedent's employer. See Jones v. ConocoPhillips, 

Case 4:14-cv-03612-CW Document 45 Filed 06/12/15 Page 2 of 3
3 

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

United 

States District 

Court

For the Northern District of California 

198 Cal. App. 4th 1187, 1199-1200 (Cal. Ct. App. 2011). While the 

Court of Appeal did not discuss the precise authorities on which 

Defendant bases their argument for dismissing Hyundai Motor 

Company, the absence of any suggestion that a transaction between 

the decedent and the chemical companies was necessary to create a 

duty to disclose casts doubt on both Defendant's argument that a 

transaction is required in the first place and their contention 

that Hyundai Motor Company should be dismissed because Plaintiffs 

never transacted with it. See id. 

Because the parties did not address these issues in their 

briefing on the motion to dismiss, the Court hereby ORDERS the 

parties to submit supplemental briefs limited to these and any 

related issues as follows: 

 Hyundai shall file an opening brief of no more than ten 

(10) pages no later than Friday, June 26, 2015; 

 Plaintiffs shall file a responsive brief of no more than 

ten (10) pages no later than Friday, July 3, 2015; and

 Hyundai may file a reply brief of no more than five (5) 

pages no later than Friday July 10, 2015. 

IT IS SO ORDERED. 

 

Dated: June 12, 2015 

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 4:14-cv-03612-CW Document 45 Filed 06/12/15 Page 3 of 3