CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT 

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

EASTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS 

SHERMAN DIVISION

Arecely Gamez, AND JEFFRY TAKILI, on 

behalf of themselves and all others similarly 

situated, 

 

 Plaintiffs, 

 vs. 

Toyota Motor Sales, U.S.A., Inc., a Texas 

corporation; and Toyota Motor North America, 

Inc., a Texas corporation, 

 Defendants. 

 Case No.: 4:23-cv-262 

 CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT 

 DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL

Plaintiffs Arecely Gamez and Jeffry Takili (“Plaintiffs”), hereby complain against 

Defendants Toyota Motor Sales, U.S.A., Inc., and Toyota Motor North America, Inc. 

(collectively “Defendants” or “Toyota”). Defendants made and/or sold vehicles with defective 

sunroofs. E.g. from the Gamez vehicle: 

Plaintiffs seek relief for themselves and classes of similarly situated consumers as set forth 

herein. 

Case 4:23-cv-00262-SDJ Document 1 Filed 03/29/23 Page 1 of 50 PageID #: 1
2 

CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT 

INTRODUCTION 

1. Plaintiffs bring this lawsuit on behalf of themselves, a nationwide class and a 

California class consisting of past and present owners and lessees of defective 2021 Toyota 

RAV4 vehicles (the “Class Vehicles”) designed, manufactured, marketed, distributed, sold, 

warranted, and serviced by Toyota. 

2. Plaintiffs and the Class were damaged because the Class Vehicles contain 

defective panoramic roofs.1

3. The Class Vehicles represent the first generation of RAV4 vehicles with an 

optional panoramic roof that commands a price premium of nearly $10,000 over the base model. 

4. Historically, automobile glass sunroofs or moonroofs have been modestly sized, 

spanning just a small portion of the roof over the driver and front passenger seats. Panoramic 

roofs are larger, command a premium price and replace metal roofs with large plates of glass. 

5. Toyota has failed to meet the associated manufacturing challenges because of the 

propensity of its panoramic roofs to spontaneously shatter. Specifically, Class Vehicles contain 

one or more defects in the way the vehicles are manufactured and/or made that causes the 

panoramic roofs to fracture and/or shatter (the “Glass Roof Defect” or the “Defect”). Upon 

information and belief, the Glass Roof Defect occurs due to either deficient materials used to 

make the panoramic roof itself, and/or deficient manufacturing processes, and/or a deficiency in 

the structure of the Class Vehicles. 

6. Over one hundred drivers have now reported to the National Highway Traffic and 

Safety Administration (“NHTSA”) and complained on various Internet venues that their 

panoramic roofs shattered. 

1

 “Panoramic roofs” means both panoramic sunroofs and panoramic moonroofs. 

Case 4:23-cv-00262-SDJ Document 1 Filed 03/29/23 Page 2 of 50 PageID #: 2
3 

CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT 

7. The shattering is so powerful that startled drivers have compared it to the sound of 

a gunshot, followed by a rain of glass falling on the occupants of the vehicle, sometimes while 

driving at highway speeds. 

8. Toyota, however, has refused to repair or replace the panoramic roofs in Class 

Vehicles under Toyota’s warranty, requiring that Class Vehicle owners to pay hundreds or 

thousands of dollars in repair. This includes instances where the Defect occurs soon after owners 

take possession. 

9. In addition, the replacement panoramic roofs provided by Toyota (which Class 

Vehicle owners must pay for out-of-pocket) are also defective and, as a result, some Class 

Vehicle owners have had to replace the replacements which themselves exploded. Indeed, the 

panoramic roof in Plaintiff Gamez’s vehicle has exploded twice. 

10. As noted, the Glass Roof Defect can and often does manifest soon after Class 

Members take ownership of the vehicles: 

 NHTSA Complaint No. 1699773/ID No. 11364557, October 15, 2020 (Incident Date 

October 12, 2020): “The contact owns a 2021 Toyota RAV4. The contact stated that 

while his wife was driving approximately 75 MPH, the glass sunroof suddenly 

exploded. During the failure, the sunroof was closed. The local dealer Valley High 

Toyota located at 14612 Valley Center Dr., Victorville, CA 92395 and the 

manufacturer were notified of the failure. The failure mileage was 1,500.” 

 NHTSA Complaint Nos. 1716991, 1716992/ID No. 11386212, January 3, 2021 

(Incident Date December 31, 2020): “This issue happened on 12/31/2020. I was 

driving to work this evening. I came onto an onramp during my drive and I began 

increasing my speed to 70 MPH. As I’m accelerating I started to notice a whistling 

sound coming from the sunroof. I instantly assumed that my husband had accidentally 

opened the sunroof and had not closed it back up all the way. (We have not had this 

car very long at all so we are still learning which buttons do what.) As I pull back 

the cover I notice that there are shards of glass falling onto my lap from the sunroof. 

I was in complete shock and pulled over to make sure I was not mistaken. Sure enough 

the sunroof has shattered and there was glass everywhere. I have no way of explaining 

how this happened and I am very frustrated that I have to make a claim on a car I have 

had for maybe a month and a half and even more upset that I cannot explain how this 

Case 4:23-cv-00262-SDJ Document 1 Filed 03/29/23 Page 3 of 50 PageID #: 3
4 

CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT 

actually happened. I was also surprised that there were people having similar issues 

with the sunroof!” 

 NHTSA Complaint No. 1773786/ID No. 11437229, October 18, 2021 (Incident Date 

October 17, 2021): “Moon roof exploded and shattered while driving down the road 

in normal conditions, no other issues. Vehicle is less than 3 months old with 7,000 

miles. It sounded like a gunshot and only because I reacted without panic did it not 

cause me to have an accident because of the major distraction. Pulled over and no 

other damage. Had to drive 45 miles per hour to my destination or glass would have 

sprayed on anyone behind me. Currently, had to tarp and duct tape damage because 

dealership will not fix[] under warranty unless I can prove it was a defective glass/part. 

My dealer did text me and I have it that there are problems but it’s so hard to prove it 

will be my expense out of pocket. I would appreciate any help on other Toyotas having 

a similar problem and wanted to officially report to help out the next person if I can’t 

obtain proof of a defective part.” 

 NHTSA Complaints Nos. 1782742, 1782743/ID No. 11443668, December 13, 2021 

(Incident Date December 12, 2021): “I found the moonroof of my 15-day old 2021 

Toyota RAV4 spontaneously exploded while sitting parked in my driveway. As the 

shade that covers the moonroof was open, I incurred minor abrasions from not 

realizing that ‘s**t on my console” was not dust or fuzz but tiny shards of broken glass 

that I had already swiped with my hand. There is a large, jagged hole near center on 

the rear section of glass and the entire moonroof is shattered. Strangely, the glass 

around the hole is bowed outward as if something was shot through from the inside of 

the vehicle. Thankfully I was not driving and did not have my kids in the car with me 

when it happened because there would have been definite safety issues for me, my 

passengers, and any others out on the road with me. The car was last used about 6:30 

pm on Saturday, 12/11/21 and not used again until about 11:15 am on Monday, 

12/13/21. It spent the time not being used parked towards the rear of my driveway, 

shaded by my house. There are no trees or other possible falling hazards near my 

driveway and nothing found in or around my car to suggest a projectile/object was 

involved.” 

11. The Glass Roof Defect poses an extreme safety hazard to drivers, passengers, and 

pedestrians because a spontaneously shattering, exploding, or cracking panoramic roof can 

distract the driver and result in dislodged glass that can injure drivers, passengers, and 

pedestrians. 

12. In addition to the safety issues, the cost to repair the Glass Roof Defect can be 

exorbitant – often more than $1,000 for a replacement panoramic roof – requiring consumers to 

pay significant sums over the life of their Class Vehicles. 

Case 4:23-cv-00262-SDJ Document 1 Filed 03/29/23 Page 4 of 50 PageID #: 4
5 

CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT 

13. Had Plaintiffs and the Class Members known about the Glass Roof Defect, they 

would not have purchased the Class Vehicles or would have paid substantially less. 

14. Despite being notified of the Glass Roof Defect from, among other things, preproduction testing, numerous consumer complaints (both to NHTSA and on RAV4-enthusiast 

websites, discussion boards, and forums, and RAV4 Facebook Groups), warranty data, and 

dealership repair orders, Defendants have not recalled the Class Vehicles to repair the Glass 

Roof Defect, has not issued bulletins to their dealerships acknowledging that the Class Vehicles 

suffer from the Glass Roof Defect, has not offered their customers a suitable repair or nondefective replacement on RAV4-enthusiast websites panoramic roof free of charge, and has not 

offered to reimburse all Class Vehicle owners and leaseholders the costs they incurred relating to 

diagnosing and repairing the Glass Roof Defect. 

15. As a result, the Class Vehicles have suffered ascertainable loss of money, 

property, and/or loss in value of their Class Vehicles. 

16. Plaintiffs have each given Toyota a reasonable opportunity to cure the Glass Roof 

Defect, but Toyota has refused to cure the defect or otherwise has been unable to do so within a 

reasonable time. 

17. Toyota’s conduct is in violation of the California Consumers Legal Remedies Act, 

Cal. Civ. Code §§ 1750 et seq., the California Unfair Competition Law, Cal. Bus. & Prof. Code, 

§§ 17200 et seq., the Song-Beverly Consumer Warranty Act, Cal. Civ. Code §§ 1791.1, 1791.2, 

1792, and 1793 et seq., breach of express warranty under Cal. Comm. Code § 2313, and such 

conduct constitutes a breach of express and implied warranties under the Magnuson-Moss 

Warranty Act. 

Case 4:23-cv-00262-SDJ Document 1 Filed 03/29/23 Page 5 of 50 PageID #: 5
6 

CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT 

18. To remedy Toyota’s unlawful conduct, Plaintiffs, on behalf of the proposed class 

members, seek damages and restitution from Toyota, as well as notification to class members 

about the defect. 

PARTIES

19. Plaintiff Aracely Gamez (“Plaintiff Gamez” or “Ms. Gamez”) is an adult 

individual residing in Victorville, California. 

20. Plaintiff Donna Miranda (“Plaintiff Miranda” or “Ms. Miranda”) is an adult 

individual residing in Placentia, California. 

21. Plaintiff Jeffry Takili (“Plaintiff Takili” or “Mr. Takili”) is an adult individual 

residing in Sacramento, California. 

22. Defendants Toyota Motor Sales, U.S.A., Inc. and Toyota Motor North America, 

Inc. are Texas corporations with their principal place of business at 6565 Headquarters Drive, 

Plano, Texas 75024. Toyota is responsible for the manufacture, distribution, marketing, sale and 

lease of the Subject Vehicles in Texas and throughout the United States. Toyota has a nationwide 

dealership network and operates offices and facilities throughout the United States. Toyota 

distributes Toyota, Lexus, and Scion vehicles in the United States and sells these vehicles 

through its network of dealers. Money received from the purchase of a Toyota vehicle from a 

dealer flows from the dealer to Toyota. 

23. At all times herein mentioned, Toyota designed, engineered, developed, 

manufactured, fabricated, assembled, equipped, tested or failed to test, inspected or failed to 

inspect, repaired, retrofitted or failed to retrofit, failed to recall, labeled, advertised, promoted, 

marketed, supplied, distributed, wholesaled, and/or sold the Class Vehicles, including the 

vehicles operated by Plaintiffs. Toyota also reviews and analyzes warranty data submitted by 

Case 4:23-cv-00262-SDJ Document 1 Filed 03/29/23 Page 6 of 50 PageID #: 6
7 

CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT 

Toyota’s dealerships and authorized technicians in order to identify defect trends in vehicles. 

Upon information and belief, Toyota dictates that when a repair is made under warranty (or 

warranty coverage is requested), service centers must provide Defendants with detailed 

documentation of the problem and the fix that describes the complaint, cause, and correction, and 

also save the broken part in the event Defendants decide to audit the dealership. Toyota uses this 

information to determine whether particular repairs are covered by an applicable Toyota 

warranty or are indicative of a pervasive defect. 

24. Toyota also developed the marketing materials to which Plaintiffs and the Class 

were exposed, owner’s manuals, informational brochures, warranty booklets, and information 

included in maintenance recommendations and/or schedules for the Class Vehicles, all of which 

fail to disclose the Glass Roof Defect. 

JURISDICTION AND VENUE 

25. The Court has jurisdiction over Plaintiffs’ claims pursuant to the Class Action 

Fairness Act, 28 U.S.C. § 1332(d) because: (a) this action is brought as a proposed class action 

under Fed. R. Civ. P. 23; (b) the proposed Class includes more than 100 members; (c) many of 

the proposed Class members are citizens of states that are diverse from Defendants’ citizenship; 

and (d) the matter in controversy exceeds $5,000,000, exclusive of interest and costs. 

26. Venue is proper in this District pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1391(b) because Toyota 

resides in this District and a substantial part of the events or omissions giving rise to Plaintiffs’ 

claims occurred in this District. 

FACTUAL ALLEGATIONS APPLICABLE TO INDIVIDUAL PLAINTIFFS 

I. Aracely Gamez 

27. On September 18, 2020, Ms. Gamez purchased a new 2021 Toyota RAV4 

Case 4:23-cv-00262-SDJ Document 1 Filed 03/29/23 Page 7 of 50 PageID #: 7
8 

CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT 

Limited, Vehicle Identification Number JTMN1RFV5MD069193 (hereafter the “Gamez 

Vehicle”) from San Francisco Toyota in San Francisco, California, an authorized Toyota 

dealership (hereinafter “San Francisco Toyota”). 

28. Passenger safety and reliability were important factors to Ms. Gamez’ decision to 

purchase the vehicle. Prior to purchasing the 2021 Toyota RAV4, Ms. Gamez researched the 

vehicle by looking at the Toyota’s Monroney sticker affixed to the vehicle’s passenger window. 

Specifically, Ms. Gamez chose this specific vehicle due to availability of an all-wheel-drive and 

the panoramic glass roof. Based on Toyota’s representations, Ms. Gamez was led to believe that 

the 2021 Toyota RAV4 was, among other things, a safe, reliable, and high-quality vehicle. 

29. Prior to the purchase, San Francisco Toyota assured Ms. Gamez that the Gamez 

Vehicle was accompanied by Toyota Motor Sales, U.S.A., Inc.’s New Vehicle Limited 

Warranty. 

30. In its New Vehicle Limited Warranty Toyota promised to “correct defects in 

materials or workmanship of any part supplied by Toyota” without charge within 3 years or 

36,000 miles in service, whichever occurs first. 

31. Neither Toyota nor the selling dealership disclosed at the time of purchase or 

before that the 2021 Toyota RAV4 contained the Glass Roof Defect. Indeed, Toyota concealed 

this information from consumers, and Ms. Gamez was not aware of, and did not have any reason 

to anticipate, that her vehicle was afflicted by the Glass Roof Defect when she purchased the 

vehicle. 

32. Toyota’s omissions were material to Ms. Gamez. If Toyota had adequately 

disclosed these facts before Ms. Gamez purchased the vehicle, she would not have bought the 

vehicle. 

Case 4:23-cv-00262-SDJ Document 1 Filed 03/29/23 Page 8 of 50 PageID #: 8
9 

CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT 

33. Approximately one month after her purchase, in October of 2020, Ms. Gamez 

experienced the Glass Roof Defect. Her panoramic roof exploded while she was driving her 

vehicle on the freeway. Below is a photograph Ms. Gamez took of the shattered glass roof: 

34. Immediately prior to the glass roof shattering in her car, Ms. Gamez did not see or 

hear anything impact the glass roof or the vehicle. 

Case 4:23-cv-00262-SDJ Document 1 Filed 03/29/23 Page 9 of 50 PageID #: 9
10 

CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT 

35. Ms. Gamez is an experienced driver, and she has driven several other vehicles 

equipped with panoramic roofs on similar roads, in similar climate conditions, and at the 

same speeds, and none of those vehicles’ panoramic roofs have spontaneously exploded. 

36. Right after the glass roof shattered in October of 2020, Ms. Gamez presented the 

Gamez Vehicle to San Francisco Toyota for repair. She informed the dealership about the 

circumstances of the glass roof exploding and that she believes it was the result of a defect with 

the glass roof itself. In response, San Francisco Toyota declined to perform the repair under 

Toyota’s warranty. 

37. Ms. Gamez then submitted a claim to her insurance company and paid a $500.00 

deductible in connection with the glass roof replacement in her car. 

38. A replacement was put in by Sunroof Express Inc. on October 19, 2020. 

39. The Gamez Vehicle experienced the Glass Roof Defect again on October 6, 2022, 

when it shattered around the seam. Below is a photograph Ms. Gamez took of the shattered glass 

roof: 

Case 4:23-cv-00262-SDJ Document 1 Filed 03/29/23 Page 10 of 50 PageID #: 10
11 

CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT 

40. Again, Ms. Gamez submitted a claim to her insurance company and paid a 

$500.00 deductible in connection with the glass roof replacement in her car. 

41. A replacement was put in by Sunroof Express Inc. on October 11, 2022. 

42. On October 19, 2022, Ms. Gamez, through her counsel, sent a letter to Toyota 

advising it that the Gamez Vehicle suffered from the Glass Roof Defect and that Ms. Gamez was 

denied a replacement glass roof under Toyota’s warranty. 

43. By a letter dated November 7, 2022, Toyota denied Ms. Gamez a repair under its 

warranty. 

44. At all times, Ms. Gamez has driven her vehicle in a foreseeable manner and in the 

manner in which it was intended to be used. 

II. Jeffry Takili 

45. On December 31, 2021, Mr. Takili purchased a new 2021 Toyota RAV4 Prime 

XSE, Vehicle Identification Number JTMEB3FV0MD072822 (hereafter the “Takili Vehicle”) 

from Toyota Town, in Stockton, California, an authorized Toyota dealership (hereinafter, 

“Toyota Town”). 

46. Passenger safety and reliability were important factors to Mr. Takili’s decision to 

purchase the vehicle. Prior to purchasing the 2021 Toyota RAV4, Mr. Takili researched the 

vehicle by looking at the vehicle’s specifications and features in Toyota’s brochures and by 

reviewing Toyota’s Monroney sticker affixed to the passenger window of the vehicle. Based on 

Toyota’s representations, Mr. Takili was led to believe that the 2021 Toyota RAV4 was, among 

other things, a safe, reliable, and high-quality vehicle. 

47. Prior to the purchase, Toyota Town assured Mr. Takili that the Takili Vehicle was 

accompanied by Toyota Motor Sales, U.S.A., Inc.’s New Vehicle Limited Warranty. 

Case 4:23-cv-00262-SDJ Document 1 Filed 03/29/23 Page 11 of 50 PageID #: 11
12 

CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT 

48. In its New Vehicle Limited Warranty Toyota promised to “correct defects in 

materials or workmanship of any part supplied by Toyota” without charge within 3 years or 

36,000 miles in service, whichever occurs first. 

49. Neither Toyota nor the selling dealership ever disclosed at the time of purchase or 

before that the 2021 Toyota RAV4 contained the Glass Roof Defect. Indeed, Toyota concealed 

this information from consumers, and Mr. Takili was not aware of, and did not have any reason 

to anticipate, that his vehicle was afflicted by the Glass Roof Defect when he purchased the 

vehicle. 

50. Toyota’s omissions were material to Mr. Takili. If Toyota had adequately 

disclosed these facts before Mr. Takili purchased the vehicle, he would not have bought the 

vehicle. 

51. On November 8, 2022, less than a year after purchasing the vehicle and with 

approximately 15,300 miles on its odometer, the panoramic roof exploded. 

52. At the time Mr. Takili was driving on the freeway and prior to explosion he did 

not hear anything impact the vehicle or the panoramic roof. 

53. Mr. Takili pulled over to the side of the road and as he opened the sunshade, a 

shattered glass rained down into the vehicle. 

54. On November 9, 2022, Mr. Takili spoke to a Toyota Town Service Advisor and 

requested that the dealer replace the panoramic roof in his car under Toyota’s warranty. 

55. Toyota Town refused to repair the panoramic roof under Toyota’s warranty and 

quoted Mr. Takili $1,237.59 to perform a repair. 

56. Mr. Takili then submitted a claim to his insurance company in connection with 

the glass roof replacement in his car. 

Case 4:23-cv-00262-SDJ Document 1 Filed 03/29/23 Page 12 of 50 PageID #: 12
13 

CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT 

57. On November 12, 2022, Safelite replaced the panoramic roof and charged Mr. 

Takili’s insurance company $759.85 for a replacement panoramic roof and undisclosed amount 

for labor. 

58. On November 18, 2022, Mr. Takili, through his counsel, sent a letter to Toyota 

advising it that the Takili Vehicle suffered from the Glass Roof Defect and that Mr. Takili was 

denied a replacement panoramic roofs under Toyota’s warranty. 

59. By a letter dated January 13, 2023, Toyota denied Mr. Takili a repair under its 

warranty. 

60. At all times, Mr. Takili has driven his vehicle in a foreseeable manner and in the 

manner in which it was intended to be used. 

FACTUAL ALLEGATIONS 

The Glass Roof Defect 

61. Toyota has sold tens of thousands of 2021 RAV4 Class Vehicles across the 

United States. 

62. The Class Vehicles represent the first generation of RAV4 model line of vehicles 

with an optional panoramic roof. 

63. Panoramic roofs, in comparison to traditional sunroofs or moonroofs, are both 

wider and longer, covering most of the vehicle’s roof. Since the panoramic roofs provide extra 

light and an “open air” feeling while driving, Toyota charges thousands of dollars for the option. 

To wit, Toyota markets the panoramic roofs as a luxury upgrade available on higher trim 

vehicles and only as part of an optional advanced technology package. For example, in gas 

powered RAV4 vehicles the panoramic roof option is only available starting with a “Limited” 

trim that commands a $8,530 premium over a base “LE” trim and only with selection of the 

Advanced Technology Package at a cost of $2,540. In hybrid powertrain RAV4 vehicles the 

Case 4:23-cv-00262-SDJ Document 1 Filed 03/29/23 Page 13 of 50 PageID #: 13
14 

CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT 

panoramic roof option is only available starting with a “XSE” trim that commands a $5,950 

premium over a base “LE” trim and only with selection of the Advanced Technology Package at 

a cost of $3,665. 

64. The actual material cost of the panoramic sunroofs is fairly low, making the 

option a more profitable feature. 

65. Panoramic roofs are made of large glass plates that attach to tracks, which in turn 

are set within a frame attached to the vehicle. Most panoramic roofs, including those sold by 

Toyota, include a retractable sunshade. A photo of the panoramic roof in the Toyota RAV4 from 

Toyota USA’s website appears below: 

66. Upon information and belief, Toyota makes its panoramic roofs out of tempered 

glass, also called a safety glass as when it breaks it separates into small pieces. Tempered or 

safety glass is made by shaping and cutting a piece of annealed glass that is then heated and 

rapidly cooled. This tempering process creates an outer layer of compression that is shrinkwrapped around the middle of the glass, which is constantly pressing outwards, making the final 

Case 4:23-cv-00262-SDJ Document 1 Filed 03/29/23 Page 14 of 50 PageID #: 14
15 

CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT 

product stronger than non-tempered glass. If the outer layer is compromised, however, the entire 

piece of glass shatters explosively. 

67. In addition, a ceramic paint is applied before the panoramic roof glass undergoes 

tempering. The ceramic paint is generally composed of frits, pigments, and other additives. 

These ceramic enamels are applied on the top around the edges of panoramic roof glazing and 

serve aesthetic and functional purposes. The ceramic paint appears as a black band along the 

edge of the glass. 

68. Ceramic fusion of tempered glass makes the glass surface very unstable because it 

blocks the cold air and thus hampers the formation of compression stress on the surface. 

69. Further, to reduce road and wind noise, as well as to make panoramic roofs less 

susceptible to leaking rainwater, Toyota also takes steps to fasten the panoramic roof glass to the 

vehicle with a sufficient degree of tightness. However, this presents an engineering challenge as 

the panoramic roof is structural part of the of the vehicle and the exertion of such pressure 

combined with flexing of the vehicle’s unibody stresses and weakens the glass, with the 

vibration of ordinary driving imposing further stress. 

70. In Class Vehicles, the glass used in production cannot withstand the pressures and 

flexing that the panoramic roof frame and vehicle demand. The consequence is that under 

ordinary driving conditions, the glass spontaneously shatters, as seen on the following picture of 

Plaintiff Gamez’ 2021 Toyota RAV4: 

Case 4:23-cv-00262-SDJ Document 1 Filed 03/29/23 Page 15 of 50 PageID #: 15
16 

CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT 

71. Moreover, although some other automakers use laminated glass in their 

panoramic roofs to reduce the risk of sudden explosion and injury to the vehicle occupants, 

Toyota, in the Class Vehicles, does not. 

72. The Glass Roof Defect presents a safety hazard that renders the Class Vehicles 

unreasonably dangerous to consumers due to, inter alia, the impact of the Defect on the driver’s 

ability to drive the vehicle and the distraction caused by the panoramic roof failure, and the 

potential for injury. 

Consumer Complaints Reveal the Magnitude of the Defect 

73. Class Vehicle owners report that despite having driven other vehicles for decades, 

their Class Vehicles are the only vehicles they have seen suffer from panoramic roofs that 

unexpectedly and spontaneously explode under similar circumstances, i.e., where there has been 

no impact damage or other explanation for the failure: 

Case 4:23-cv-00262-SDJ Document 1 Filed 03/29/23 Page 16 of 50 PageID #: 16
17 

CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT 

 NHTSA Complaint No. 1701591/ID No. 11365940, October 23, 2020 (Incident Date 

October 23, 2020): “Driving new 2021 Toyota RAV4 and the sunroof blew out for no 

apparent reason.” 

 NHTSA Complaint No. 1757981, July 19, 2021 (Incident Date June 25, 2012): “June 

25, 2012 [sic] driving to work at about 7:35 in the morning going about 45 mph my 

moon roof exploded. No other[] cars were around me and nothing hit my car or 

moon roof for this to happen. I called the police for a report if I needed it, but I did 

not. I drove it to the dealership after this happened and spoke with the sales manager 

that I had bought the car from in January. My car was only 5 months old. They 

replaced my moonroof and gave me a rental car and said it would be covered under 

warranty.” 

 NHTSA Complaints Nos. 1782742, 1782743, December 13, 2021 (Incident Date 

between December 11 and December 13, 2021): “I found the moonroof of my 15-day 

old 2021 Toyota RAV4 spontaneously exploded while sitting parked in my driveway. 

As the shade that covers the moonroof was open, I incurred minor abrasions from not 

realizing that ‘s**t on my console” was not dust or fuzz but tiny shards of broken glass 

that I had already swiped with my hand. There is a large, jagged hole near center on 

the rear section of glass and the entire moonroof is shattered. Strangely, the glass 

around the hole is bowed outward as if something was shot through from the inside of 

the vehicle. Thankfully I was not driving and did not have my kids in the car with me 

when it happened because there would have been definite safety issues for me, my 

passengers, and any others out on the road with me. The car was last used about 6:30 

pm on Saturday, 12/11/21 and not used again until about 11:15 am on Monday, 

12/13/21. It spent the time not being used parked towards the rear of my driveway, 

shaded by my house. There are no trees or other possible falling hazards near my 

driveway and nothing found in or around my car to suggest a projectile/object was 

involved.” 

 NHTSA Complaint No. 1783553/ID No. 11444257, December 18, 2021 (Incident 

Date December 15, 2021): “I was driving down an open road when I suddenly heard 

a loud rattling noise and a huge explosion. Luckily there wasn’t [sic] any cars around 

us and we weren’t going very fast. As you can imagine this was very shocking and 

distracting and I was eventually able to pull over to the side of the road to investigate 

what had happened. I had my 9-month pregnant sister as well as my 4-month infant 

in the car. What we found was the sunroof of my car had explode[ed] upwards and 

there were shards of glass everywhere. We had been experiencing extreme weather 

conditions the past few days and had to assume this to be the cause. There was no 

one around us nor anything above us and my car is kept under a carport. An 

external force would not cause the sunroof glass to explode upwards. It would be 

the exact opposite and smashed downwards.” 

 NHTSA Complaint No. 1787202, January 10, 2022: “I was driving on a two-lane 

highway going approximately 55 mph. It was around 8 pm and it was already dark 

out. There was nothing near me on the road. While driving, I heard a loud 

explosion/pop. I swerved into the opposite lane due to the sound. Luckily there were 

Case 4:23-cv-00262-SDJ Document 1 Filed 03/29/23 Page 17 of 50 PageID #: 17
18 

CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT 

no cars oncoming. I was able to get back to the right side of the road and find a spot 

to stop/park. I then looked at my sunroof and it was shattered in a circular pattern. It 

was not from an external force.” 

 NHTSA Complaint Nos. 1805004, 1805005/ID No. 11459421, April 3, 2022 (Incident 

Date April 3, 2022): “While driving on the highway the sunroof spontaneously 

exploded outwards sending glass shards behind the vehicle and also down into the 

cabin. There was no impact with any objects and the vehicle was not passing under 

any structures. It was moderate temperature day [approximately] 60 degrees F so the 

roof was not especially hot or cold. There is dashcam footage available showing 

nothing abnormal happened at the time of glass failure.” 

 NHTSA Complaint No. 1806109/ID No. 11460219, April 8, 2022 (Incident Date April 

6, 2022): “The component that failed was the glass of my sunroof. My sunroof 

somehow exploded on me while I was driving. There were no vehicles or other things 

that would have caused rocks to fly and hit the dead center of the sunroof. If you 

look at the images you can tell that the class is pointing upward and not downward. I 

was lucky that I had my son [sic] shade cover closed. If it was not closed I would have 

had large pieces of glass fall in my vehicle and potentially cause cuts and lesions from 

the glass. This could not be heat related as it was at 6:58 a.m. This problem has not 

been identified by any dealer or independent repair center but it’s very similar to many 

others who have had these complaints on your website and consumer reports. The 

components have not been inspected by the dealer or police and there were no warning 

signs of any kind no visible original cracks or anything that would have caused it to 

do what i[t] did. I did attempt to contact Toyota but they refused to assist and told me 

to contact my insurance. The dealership Crown Toyota refused to assist and told me 

to contact my insurance and said that [a] rock must have hit. They also wouldn’t repair 

it because they will not accept payment from my insurance company which is 

Mercury.” 

 NHTSA Complaint No. 1822790/ID No. 11472192, July 3, 2022 (Incident Date July 

3, 2022): “The sunroof spontaneously exploded while driving on the highway. There 

were no cars nearby. There was nothing that hit the vehicle, further supported by 

the glass clearly having exploded outwards.” Glass shrapnel could have hit nearby 

vehicles. If the interior panel was opened to the sunroof there would have been a 

significant amount of glass shrapnel inside the vehicle, hitting the driver and 

passengers...” 

 NHTSA Complaint No. 1825881/ID No. 11474351, July 17, 2022 (Incident Date June 

9, 2022): “Driving 35 MPH the sunroof glass shattered. There were no other vehicles 

going by and no rocks were seen. If the sunroof shade were open the glass would 

have fallen on top of the driver possibly causing injury or an accident. I have found 

reports of this happening to other vehicles online.” 

 NHTSA Complaint No. 1840818/ID No. 11484909, September 16, 2022 (Incident 

Date September 16, 2022): “I was driving on the highway, 45 minutes into my 3[-] 

hour trip. As I was approaching a bridge, I suddenly heard a very large bang—sort of 

Case 4:23-cv-00262-SDJ Document 1 Filed 03/29/23 Page 18 of 50 PageID #: 18
19 

CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT 

like a gunshot. I immediately looked around and noticed my moonroof in my vehicle 

had completely shattered. It was still held together, but I very quickly closed the 

moonroof’s inner cover to assure no glass would fall into my car. Noticeably, there 

was small shards of glass all over my center console. I could hear the glass falling 

onto my moonroof and could see glass flying behind me with a vehicle traveling 

behind. I very well could have suffered injuries/cuts if the glass had shattered onto 

me. Not only is this dangerous for me, but the people behind me. It could have 

cracked their windshield, or even given someone a flat tire. Now I am left to travel 2 

hours not knowing what could potentially happen next. I took the rest of the travel 

slow. This happened with absolutely no warning. It was sudden, loud, and scary. I 

am left to pay for this now because there is no recall or warranty.” 

 NHTSA Complaint No. 1847514, October 17, 2022: “While driving on the freeway, 

suddenly we heard a loud noise and then felt particles dropping on us. While 

attempting to assess what happened in and outside of the vehicle, we noticed the 

sunroof/moonroof shattered and small shards of glass were everywhere. The loud 

sound and attempt to assess the situation could have caused an accident. We were not 

passing under anything like a bridge and could determine no cause for the breaking 

of the glass. Afterward when I could safely pull over so we could clean the glass off 

out of the vehicle, we found no rock or other debris in my vehicle that did not belong. 

Only shards of glass in our hair, on our bodies, and everywhere in the car, sticking 

into our skin and making one passenger bleed slightly.” 

 NHTSA Complaint No. 1847598, October 18, 2022: “I was driving my 2021 Toyota 

Rav4 Prime on the freeway. As I was exiting the freeway there was a LOUD explosion 

in my car that scared the hell out of my friend and I, almost causing me to get into an 

accident. I pulled over and got out to see what happened. As I walked around the car 

I checked the tires, which were fine. I did not see anything (it was dark). I could not 

see the roof (I am short) and the moonroof shade was closed. I got in the car and 

started driving again and my friend said she could hear crackling, so I pulled into a 

parking lot. We got out again, and my friend looked up on the top of the car and could 

see the moonroof had exploded. The glass was cracked around the outer edge. There 

was no mark where a rock would have hit it. There were no debris marks anywhere, 

and we did not hear anything hit it. It was an explosion that you could feel. There 

was absolutely no warning. I took the car in the next day to the dealer and the service 

agent told me to come back on Monday, which is today. The service agent at the 

dealership agreed that there were no marks or dings where a rock hit it. He agreed 

that it looked like it exploded the way it was cracked all around the outer edge of the 

glass. Late this afternoon they called to tell me that there is a ‘quality control’ person 

coming tomorrow to look at it so they can decide whether they will honor their 

warranty. I also purchased the ‘bumper to bumper’ extended warranty when I bought 

the car, less than a year ago. I always keep the moonroof shade open. Fortunately, I 

had it closed at that time[,] or we would have at least gotten cut. I usually have my 

grandson in the backseat and there are glass shards in the backseat and in his car seat. 

If he had been in the car, my grandson would have gotten cut.” 

Case 4:23-cv-00262-SDJ Document 1 Filed 03/29/23 Page 19 of 50 PageID #: 19
20 

CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT 

 NHTSA Complaint No. 11501889, January 15, 2023 (Incident Date January 13, 

2023): “The glass of the sunroof exploded and shattered when I was driving on the 

highway from Chicago to South Bend at normal speed on January 13, 2023, around 4 

p.m. I heard a loud explosion sound and found the sunroof glass shattered and falling. 

There was no vehicle around me, no impact with any objects, and the vehicle was 

not passing under any structures at the time of explosion. I was not injured by the 

incident but was really scared and had to pullover to the side. After recovering from 

shock, I managed to drive home with the shattered sunroof and could feel glass pieces 

falling on my right shoulder when I was driving. This was the first time for the issue 

to appear[,] and there was no sign or symptom prior to the problem. I purchased this 

brand-new vehicle one year ago. I found other similar complaints online on 

spontaneous sunroof explosion of Toyota RAV4 and they look similar to what I 

experienced...” 

74. Further, Toyota refuses to repair or repair or replace the Glass Roof Defect under 

its written warranty when given a reasonable opportunity to do so. Toyota has not issued any 

bulletins or instructions to its dealerships regarding the Class Vehicles’ panoramic roofs’ 

propensity to spontaneously explode or repairing the same, nor has Toyota authorized its 

dealerships to cover Class Vehicle panoramic roof repair or replacement costs under Toyota’s 

warranty. In addition, Toyota has refused to repair or replace the Plaintiffs’ panoramic roofs 

under Toyota’s warranty. Likewise, as detailed in the NHTSA and online complaints reproduced 

below, other Class Vehicle owners complain that Toyota dealers charge them out-of-pocket for 

repairs or insist that they file a claim under their insurance policies: 

 NHTSA Complaint No. 1861278, December 28, 2022 (Incident Date December 27, 

2022): “...On December 27, 2022, we were running errands and...our sunroof 

EXPLODED. It sounded like a gun went off...We took our car immediately to a 

Toyota dealership within half a mile and they contacted the main Toyota 

office...Toyota insisted it must have been from road debris hitting the sunroof and 

then the internal cabin pressure caused the glass to go up/out...Toyota is not helping 

us with this situation and we are having to use insurance. After reading other similar 

incidences, I was shocked how many others have experienced this on Toyota nation, 

Reddit, and NHTSA...” 

 NHTSA Complaint Nos. 1716991, 1716992/ID No. 11386212, January 3, 2021 

(Incident Date December 31, 2020): “This issue happened on 12/31/2020...the 

sunroof has shattered and there was glass everywhere. I have no way of explaining 

how this happened and I am very frustrated that I have to make a claim on a car I 

have had for maybe a month and a half and even more upset that I cannot explain 

Case 4:23-cv-00262-SDJ Document 1 Filed 03/29/23 Page 20 of 50 PageID #: 20
21 

CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT 

how this actually happened. I was also surprised that there were people having similar 

issues with the sunroof!” 

 NHTSA Complaint No. 1773786/ID No. 11437229, October 18, 2021 (Incident Date 

October 17, 2021): “Moon roof exploded and shattered while driving down the road 

in normal conditions, no other issues. Vehicle is less than 3 months old with 7,000 

miles...Currently, had to tarp and duct tape damage because dealership will not 

fix[] under warranty unless I can prove it was a defective glass/part. My dealer did 

text me and I have it that there are problems but it’s so hard to prove it will be my 

expense out of pocket...” 

 NHTSA Complaint No. 1788929, January 20, 2022: “The contact owns a 2021 Toyota 

Rav4 Hybrid. The contact stated while driving approximately 50 MPH, the sunroof 

exploded, and fragments of glass fell inside the cabin of the vehicle. The vehicle was 

taken to a local dealer and was diagnosed with needing the sunroof replaced. The 

vehicle was not repaired. The manufacturer was informed of the failure but offered 

no assistance. The failure mileage was approximately 20,000.” 

 NHTSA Complaint No. 1806109/ID No. 11460219, April 8, 2022 (Incident Date April 

6, 2022): “The component that failed was the glass of my sunroof. My sunroof 

somehow exploded on me while I was driving. There were no vehicles or other things 

that would have caused rocks to fly and hit the dead center of the sunroof...I did 

attempt to contact Toyota but they refused to assist and told me to contact my 

insurance. The dealership Crown Toyota refused to assist and told me to contact 

my insurance and said that [a] rock must have hit. They also wouldn’t repair it 

because they will not accept payment from my insurance company which is Mercury.” 

75. Plaintiffs have likewise been forced to file claims under their insurance policies 

and pay a deductible to have the panoramic roofs replaced or repaired even though their vehicles 

are covered by Toyota’s warranty. 

76. Moreover, on information and belief, when panoramic roof repairs are performed 

by Defendants’ dealers (for charge), defective panoramic roofs are merely replaced with 

similarly defective panoramic roofs. For instance, the panoramic roof in Plaintiff Gamez’s 

vehicle shattered and was replaced and then the replacement panoramic roof also exploded. 

77. Dozens if not hundreds of purchasers and lessees of the Class Vehicles have 

experienced the Glass Roof Defect. Given how widespread the issue is and the fact that 

panoramic roofs often shatter shortly after the Class Vehicles’ sales, Class Vehicles’ owners 

Case 4:23-cv-00262-SDJ Document 1 Filed 03/29/23 Page 21 of 50 PageID #: 21
22 

CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT 

have been complaining about the Glass Roof Defect and have been posting such complaints 

online since at least late 2020. 

78. For instance, on www.ToyotaNation.com, a Toyota vehicle enthusiast website 

that upon information and belief Toyota regularly monitors, an April 1, 2022, post written by a 

Class Vehicle owner noted that they “have a Toyota RAV4 2020 XLE premium” and that the 

sunroof window glass shattered in March of 2022 while driving on the freeway. The owner 

further noted that the inside panoramic roof cover was closed; otherwise, the glass would have 

fallen inside the car and on the driver.2 Other Class Vehicle owners responded that they had 

near-identical experiences; one owner of a 2020 RAV4 XLE posted on March 31, 2022, that the 

panoramic roof exploded from the inside out with no debris or impact.3 

79. Similarly, on Reddit, Class Vehicles’ owners have been complaining 

about the Glass Roof Defect, including a post about the panoramic roof of a 2021 Toyota RAV4 

Prime XSE spontaneously exploding.4 Other RAV4 forums and groups contain similar stories: 

the owner of a 2021 Toyota RAV4 Hybrid XSE posted that, while driving on the freeway on 

June 3, 2021, he “heard a loud bang and rattle sound” and “saw shards of glass streaming off the 

back of the car. [He] opened the sunshade and found the glass panel had shattered... [He] found 

nothing like a rock impact or any scratches on the roof.” The vehicle was two months old at the 

time of the incident.5 Toyota declined to cover the replacement of the panoramic roof and 

required the owner to submit a claim under his insurance policy, claiming that the panoramic 

2

 https://www.toyotanation.com/threads/shattered-window-glass-for-no-apparent-reason-whiledriving.1717121/ (last visited Jan. 19, 2023). 

3

 https://www.rav4world.com/threads/sunroof-glass-exploded.292629/page-2 (last visited Jan. 

19, 2023). 

4

 https://www.reddit.com/r/rav4prime/comments/rohhyi/sunroof_spontaneously_exploded/ (last 

visited Jan. 19, 2023). 

5

 https://www.rav4world.com/threads/sunroof-shattered.313549/ (last visited Jan. 19, 2023). 

Case 4:23-cv-00262-SDJ Document 1 Filed 03/29/23 Page 22 of 50 PageID #: 22
23 

CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT 

roof shattered from impact by an object.6 In a post from August 26, 2021, another user reported 

that the same thing happened to their RAV4 that day.7 

80. On October 23, 2020, another Reddit user posted that the sunroof in his 2021 

RAV4 blew out within 24 hours of owning the vehicle.8 

81. On October 23, 2020, another Reddit user posted that the panoramic roof in his 

2021 RAV4 blew out within 24 hours of owning the vehicle.9 

82. Such posts are also common in Facebook groups dedicated to RAV4 owners. For 

example, in an October 10, 2021, post, a member of the Facebook group “Toyota RAV4 Hybrid” 

posted that she had been driving her 2021 Toyota RAV4 Hybrid XSE on a straight stretch of 

road when she heard a boom, and the panoramic roof exploded. She noted that she had 

purchased the brand-new vehicle approximately three months prior to the incident. This user also 

posted in the Facebook group “Toyota RAV4 Club” on October 8, 2021, regarding the incident. 

In a comment to this post, another user noted, “Been seeing a bunch of posts about these things 

shattering across the RAV4 groups.” 

83. Another Facebook user posted pictures of a shattered panoramic roof in “Toyota 

RAV4 Hybrid” group on May 13, 2022, asking whether anyone else had experienced a similar 

experience while driving. In response, another group member posted photos of his RAV4 with 

the panoramic roof shattered. These photos were posted at or about the same time as the original 

post, in May of 2022. 

6 Id. 

7 Id. 

8

 https://www.reddit.com/r/Toyota/comments/jgtz3n/new_2021_rav4_sunroof_blew_out/ (last 

visited on Jan. 24, 2023). 

9

 https://www.reddit.com/r/Toyota/comments/jgtz3n/new_2021_rav4_sunroof_blew_out/ (last 

visited on Jan. 24, 2023). 

Case 4:23-cv-00262-SDJ Document 1 Filed 03/29/23 Page 23 of 50 PageID #: 23
24 

CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT 

84. Another Facebook member posted on August 20, 2021, in “Toyota RAV4 Club” 

that the sunroof blew out in his 2021 RAV4 and sounded like a gunshot. He noted that there had 

been nothing around the vehicle at the time and posted photos of the shattered panoramic roof in 

the group. He further noted that upon presenting the vehicle to a dealership, the dealership 

advised him that the explosion was from an outside source; therefore, he had to make a claim 

under his insurance policy and pay a $500.00 deductible for the repairs. According to the 

member, he did a Google search and found several complaints of panoramic roofs suddenly 

exploding and breaking. 

85. Yet another Facebook member of “Toyota RAV4 Club” posted to the group on 

September 28, 2021, commenting, “Now I’m starting to think it was a bad idea to get [a RAV4]. 

I’ve seen so many posts about these things spontaneously combusting...” Comments regarding 

the exploding panoramic roof appear to date back at least as far as October of 2019 when RAV4 

owners were reporting that the panoramic roofs were exploding while driving even though there 

was nothing in the vicinity to hit the panoramic roof or vehicle. 

86. Class Vehicle owners have continued to post similar posts and comments on other 

forums about the Glass Roof Defect to date. For example, another Class Vehicle owner posted 

on March 25, 2022, that the same thing happened to them while driving down the highway and 

that it was “quite startling as the sunshield was pulled back and I was covered in glass.”10

Another Class Vehicle owner posted on October 17, 2022, that the panoramic roof on their 

RAV4 exploded the prior week.11 

10 https://www.rav4world.com/threads/sunroof-shattered.313549/page-2 

11 https://www.rav4world.com/threads/sunroof-shattered.313549/page-3 

Case 4:23-cv-00262-SDJ Document 1 Filed 03/29/23 Page 24 of 50 PageID #: 24
25 

CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT 

87. Further, the owners of the Class Vehicles voiced their complaints concerning the 

Glass Roof Defect with NHTSA. Upon information and belief, Toyota actively monitored these 

complaints during the relevant time period, demonstrating that Toyota has known about the 

defect at all relevant times. 

 NHTSA Complaint No. 1699773/ID No. 11364557, October 15, 2020 (Incident Date 

October 12, 2020): “The contact owns a 2021 Toyota RAV4. The contact stated that 

while his wife was driving approximately 75 MPH, the glass sunroof suddenly exploded. 

During the failure, the sunroof was closed. The local dealer Valley High Toyota located 

at 14612 Valley Center Dr., Victorville, CA 92395 and the manufacturer were notified of 

the failure. The failure mileage was 1,500.” 

 NHTSA Complaint No. 1701591/ID No. 11365940, October 23, 2020 (Incident Date 

October 23, 2020): “Driving new 2021 Toyota RAV4 and the sunroof blew out for no 

apparent reason.” 

 NHTSA Complaint Nos. 1716991, 1716992/ID No. 11386212, January 3, 2021 (Incident 

Date December 31, 2020): “This issue happened on 12/31/2020. I was driving to work 

this evening. I came onto an onramp during my drive and I began increasing my speed to 

70 MPH. As I’m accelerating I started to notice a whistling sound coming from the 

sunroof. I instantly assumed that my husband had accidentally opened the sunroof and 

had not closed it back up all the way. (We have not had this car very long at all so we are 

still learning which buttons do what.) As I pull back the cover I notice that there are 

shards of glass falling onto my lap from the sunroof. I was in complete shock and pulled 

over to make sure I was not mistaken. Sure enough the sunroof has shattered and there 

was glass everywhere. I have no way of explaining how this happened and I am very 

frustrated that I have to make a claim on a car I have had for maybe a month and a half 

and even more upset that I cannot explain how this actually happened. I was also 

surprised that there were people having similar issues with the sunroof!” 

 NHTSA Complaint No. 1757981/ID No. 11425434, July 19, 2021 (Incident Date June 

25, 2012): “June 25, 2012 [sic] driving to work at about 7:35 in the morning going about 

45 mph my moon roof exploded. No other[] cars were around me and nothing hit my car 

or moon roof for this to happen. I called the police for a report if I needed it, but I did 

not. I drove it to the dealership after this happened and spoke with the sales manager that 

I had bought the car from in January. My car was only 5 months old. They replaced my 

moonroof and gave me a rental car and said it would be covered under warranty.” 

 NHTSA Complaint No. 1773786/ID No. 11437229, October 18, 2021 (Incident Date 

October 17, 2021): “Moon roof exploded and shattered while driving down the road in 

normal conditions, no other issues. Vehicle is less than 3 months old with 7,000 miles. It 

sounded like a gunshot and only because I reacted without panic did it not cause me to 

have an accident because of the major distraction. Pulled over and no other damage. 

Case 4:23-cv-00262-SDJ Document 1 Filed 03/29/23 Page 25 of 50 PageID #: 25
26 

CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT 

Had to drive 45 miles per hour to my destination or glass would have sprayed on anyone 

behind me. Currently, had to tarp and duct tape damage because dealership will not fix[] 

under warranty unless I can prove it was a defective glass/part. My dealer did text me 

and I have it that there are problems but it’s so hard to prove it will be my expense out of 

pocket. I would appreciate any help on other Toyotas having a similar problem and 

wanted to officially report to help out the next person if I can’t obtain proof of a defective 

part.” 

 NHTSA Complaints Nos. 1782742, 1782743/ID No. 11443668, December 13, 2021 

(Incident Date December 12, 2021): “I found the moonroof of my 15-day old 2021 

Toyota RAV4 spontaneously exploded while sitting parked in my driveway. As the shade 

that covers the moonroof was open, I incurred minor abrasions from not realizing that 

‘s**t on my console” was not dust or fuzz but tiny shards of broken glass that I had 

already swiped with my hand. There is a large, jagged hole near center on the rear 

section of glass and the entire moonroof is shattered. Strangely, the glass around the hole 

is bowed outward as if something was shot through from the inside of the vehicle. 

Thankfully I was not driving and did not have my kids in the car with me when it 

happened because there would have been definite safety issues for me, my passengers, 

and any others out on the road with me. The car was last used about 6:30 pm on 

Saturday, 12/11/21 and not used again until about 11:15 am on Monday, 12/13/21. It 

spent the time not being used parked towards the rear of my driveway, shaded by my 

house. There are no trees or other possible falling hazards near my driveway and nothing 

found in or around my car to suggest a projectile/object was involved.” 

 NHTSA Complaint No. 1783553/ID No. 11444257, December 18, 2021 (Incident Date 

December 15, 2021): “I was driving down an open road when I suddenly heard a loud 

rattling noise and a huge explosion. Luckily there wasn’t [sic] any cars around us and we 

weren’t going very fast. As you can imagine this was very shocking and distracting and I 

was eventually able to pull over to the side of the road to investigate what had happened. 

I had my 9-month pregnant sister as well as my 4-month infant in the car. What we 

found was the sunroof of my car had explode[ed] upwards and there were shards of glass 

everywhere. We had been experiencing extreme weather conditions the past few days 

and had to assume this to be the cause. There was no one around us nor anything above 

us and my car is kept under a carport. An external force would not cause the sunroof 

glass to explode upwards. It would be the exact opposite and smashed downwards.” 

 NHTSA Complaint No. 1787202, January 10, 2022: “I was driving on a two-lane 

highway going approximately 55 mph. It was around 8 pm and it was already dark out. 

There was nothing near me on the road. While driving, I heard a loud explosion/pop. I 

swerved into the opposite lane due to the sound. Luckily there were no cars oncoming. I 

was able to get back to the right side of the road and find a spot to stop/park. I then 

looked at my sunroof and it was shattered in a circular pattern. It was not from an 

external force.” 

 NHTSA Complaint No. 1788929, January 20, 2022: “The contact owns a 2021 Toyota 

Rav4 Hybrid. The contact stated while driving approximately 50 MPH, the sunroof 

Case 4:23-cv-00262-SDJ Document 1 Filed 03/29/23 Page 26 of 50 PageID #: 26
27 

CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT 

exploded, and fragments of glass fell inside the cabin of the vehicle. The vehicle was 

taken to a local dealer and was diagnosed with needing the sunroof replaced. The vehicle 

was not repaired. The manufacturer was informed of the failure but offered no 

assistance. The failure mileage was approximately 20,000.” 

 NHTSA Complaint Nos. 1805004, 1805005/ID No. 11459421, April 3, 2022 (Incident 

Date April 3, 2022): “While driving on the highway the sunroof spontaneously exploded 

outwards sending glass shards behind the vehicle and also down into the cabin. There 

was no impact with any objects and the vehicle was not passing under any structures. It 

was moderate temperature day [approximately] 60 degrees F so the roof was not 

especially hot or cold. There is dashcam footage available showing nothing abnormal 

happened at the time of glass failure.” 

 NHTSA Complaint No. 1806109/ID No. 11460219, April 8, 2022 (Incident Date April 6, 

2022): “The component that failed was the glass of my sunroof. My sunroof somehow 

exploded on me while I was driving. There were no vehicles or other things that would 

have caused rocks to fly and hit the dead center of the sunroof. If you look at the images 

you can tell that the class is pointing upward and not downward. I was lucky that I had 

my son [sic] shade cover closed. If it was not closed I would have had large pieces of 

glass fall in my vehicle and potentially cause cuts and lesions from the glass. This could 

not be heat related as it was at 6:58 a.m. This problem has not been identified by any 

dealer or independent repair center but it’s very similar to many others who have had 

these complaints on your website and consumer reports. The components have not been 

inspected by the dealer or police and there were no warning signs of any kind no visible 

original cracks or anything that would have caused it to do what i[t] did. I did attempt to 

contact Toyota but they refused to assist and told me to contact my insurance. The 

dealership Crown Toyota refused to assist and told me to contact my insurance and said 

that [a] rock must have hit. They also wouldn’t repair it because they will not accept 

payment from my insurance company which is Mercury.” 

 NHTSA Complaint No. 1822790/ID No. 11472192, July 3, 2022 (Incident Date July 3, 

2022): “The sunroof spontaneously exploded while driving on the highway. There were 

no cars nearby. There was nothing that hit the vehicle, further supported by the glass 

clearly having exploded outwards.” Glass shrapnel could have hit nearby vehicles. If the 

interior panel was opened to the sunroof there would have been a significant amount of 

glass shrapnel inside the vehicle, hitting the driver and passengers...” 

 NHTSA Complaint No. 1825881/ID No. 11474351, July 17, 2022 (Incident Date June 9, 

2022): “Driving 35 MPH the sunroof glass shattered. There were no other vehicles 

going by and no rocks were seen. If the sunroof shade were open the glass would have 

fallen on top of the driver possibly causing injury or an accident. I have found reports of 

this happening to other vehicles online.” 

 NHTSA Complaint No. 1831437/ID No. 11478253, August 8, 2022 (Incident Date 

August 8, 2022): “I was driving and was only 5 miles from my home and I heard a loud 

pop like an explosion. My moonroof/sunroof had spontaneously exploded. Then I heard 

Case 4:23-cv-00262-SDJ Document 1 Filed 03/29/23 Page 27 of 50 PageID #: 27
28 

CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT 

glass moving around as I slowly continued home. When I got home I inspected what 

had happened and took a picture and called the dealership I purchased the car from. I 

have only owned the car for 7 months.” 

 NHTSA Complaint No. 11484488/ID No. 11484488, September 14, 2022 (Incident Date 

September 14, 2022): “Day 2 of a road trip. [T]he moonroof exploded spontaneously. 

There were three dogs underneath[;] luckily they were not hurt. Driver felt the pressure 

in the car go up before the loud pop. [T]here is a round hole in the middle and cracks 

going to the end.” 

 NHTSA Complaint No. 1840818/ID No. 11484909, September 16, 2022 (Incident Date 

September 16, 2022): “I was driving on the highway, 45 minutes into my 3[-] hour trip. 

As I was approaching a bridge, I suddenly heard a very large bang—sort of like a 

gunshot. I immediately looked around and noticed my moonroof in my vehicle had 

completely shattered. It was still held together, but I very quickly closed the moonroof’s 

inner cover to assure no glass would fall into my car. Noticeably, there was small shards 

of glass all over my center console. I could hear the glass falling onto my moonroof and 

could see glass flying behind me with a vehicle traveling behind. I very well could have 

suffered injuries/cuts if the glass had shattered onto me. Not only is this dangerous for 

me, but the people behind me. It could have cracked their windshield, or even given 

someone a flat tire. Now I am left to travel 2 hours not knowing what could potentially 

happen next. I took the rest of the travel slow. This happened with absolutely no 

warning. It was sudden, loud, and scary. I am left to pay for this now because there is 

no recall or warranty.” 

 NHTSA Complaint No. 1847514, October 17, 2022: “While driving on the freeway, 

suddenly we heard a loud noise and then felt particles dropping on us. While attempting 

to assess what happened in and outside of the vehicle, we noticed the sunroof/moonroof 

shattered and small shards of glass were everywhere. The loud sound and attempt to 

assess the situation could have caused an accident. We were not passing under anything 

like a bridge and could determine no cause for the breaking of the glass. Afterward 

when I could safely pull over so we could clean the glass off out of the vehicle, we found 

no rock or other debris in my vehicle that did not belong. Only shards of glass in our 

hair, on our bodies, and everywhere in the car, sticking into our skin and making one 

passenger bleed slightly.” 

 NHTSA Complaint No. 1847598, October 18, 2022: “I was driving my 2021 Toyota 

Rav4 Prime on the freeway. As I was exiting the freeway there was a LOUD 

explosion in my car that scared the hell out of my friend and I, almost causing me to 

get into an accident. I pulled over and got out to see what happened. As I walked 

around the car I checked the tires, which were fine. I did not see anything (it was 

dark). I could not see the roof (I am short) and the moonroof shade was closed. I got 

in the car and started driving again and my friend said she could hear crackling, so I 

pulled into a parking lot. We got out again, and my friend looked up on the top of the 

car and could see the moonroof had exploded. The glass was cracked around the 

outer edge. There was no mark where a rock would have hit it. There were no debris 

Case 4:23-cv-00262-SDJ Document 1 Filed 03/29/23 Page 28 of 50 PageID #: 28
29 

CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT 

marks anywhere, and we did not hear anything hit it. It was an explosion that you 

could feel. There was absolutely no warning. I took the car in the next day to the 

dealer and the service agent told me to come back on Monday, which is today. The 

service agent at the dealership agreed that there were no marks or dings where a rock 

hit it. He agreed that it looked like it exploded the way it was cracked all around the 

outer edge of the glass. Late this afternoon they called to tell me that there is a ‘quality 

control’ person coming tomorrow to look at it so they can decide whether they will 

honor their warranty. I also purchased the ‘bumper to bumper’ extended warranty 

when I bought the car, less than a year ago. I always keep the moonroof shade open. 

Fortunately, I had it closed at that time[,] or we would have at least gotten cut. I 

usually have my grandson in the backseat and there are glass shards in the backseat 

and in his car seat. If he had been in the car, my grandson would have gotten cut.” 

 NHTSA Complaint No. 1852148, November 9, 2022: “The sunroof shatter[ed] while 

I was driving.” 

 NHTSA Complaint No. 11495151, November 28, 2022 (Incident Date November 23, 

2022): “...My Toyota RAV4 moon roof shield couldn’t be able to withstand for the 

wind during raining when the vehicle speed was at 75 mph on Highway I-35 in 

Oklahoma. The glass busted completely, and those glass particles cause[d] 

inconvenience to the other vehicle[s] on the highway. I reported this incident to the 

car dealer but they were so rude to me and said that car is not designed for the 75 mph 

speed. Ended up convincing myself that RAV4 is not safe to drive anymore.” 

 NHTSA Complaint No. 1861278, December 28, 2022 (Incident Date December 27, 

2022): “...On December 27, 2022, we were running errands and...our sunroof 

EXPLODED. It sounded like a gun went off...We took our car immediately to a Toyota 

dealership within half a mile and they contacted the main Toyota office...Toyota insisted 

it must have been from road debris hitting the sunroof and then the internal cabin 

pressure caused the glass to go up/out...Toyota is not helping us with this situation and 

we are having to use insurance. After reading other similar incidences, I was shocked 

how many others have experienced this on Toyota nation, Reddit, and NHTSA...” 

 NHTSA Complaint No. 11501631/ID No. 11501631, January 13, 2023 (Incident Date 

January 13, 2023): “The moonroof glass shattered unexpectedly with no impact or 

previous damage while driving on the highway. The vehicle is only 3 months old 

[and] has not been involved in any accidents or incidents. If the interior moonroof 

shade was not closed the glass would have dropped all over the interior potentially 

harming myself and other passengers in the vehicle.” 

 NHTSA Complaint No. 11501889/ID No. 11502883, January 15, 2023 (Incident Date 

January 13, 2023): “The glass of the sunroof exploded and shattered when I was 

driving on the highway from Chicago to South Bend at normal speed on January 13, 

2023, around 4 p.m. I heard a loud explosion sound and found the sunroof glass 

shattered and falling. There was no vehicle around me, no impact with any objects, 

and the vehicle was not passing under any structures at the time of explosion. I 

Case 4:23-cv-00262-SDJ Document 1 Filed 03/29/23 Page 29 of 50 PageID #: 29
30 

CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT 

was not injured by the incident but was really scared and had to pullover to the side. 

After recovering from shock, I managed to drive home with the shattered sunroof and 

could feel glass pieces falling on my right shoulder when I was driving. This was the 

first time for the issue to appear[,] and there was no sign or symptom prior to the 

problem. I purchased this brand-new vehicle one year ago. I found other similar 

complaints online on spontaneous sunroof explosion of Toyota RAV4 and they look 

similar to what I experienced...” 

88. Although Toyota was aware of the widespread nature of the Glass Roof Defect in 

the Class Vehicles, and that it posed grave safety risks, Toyota has failed to take adequate steps 

to notify all Class Vehicle owners of the Defect or provide relief. 

89. Toyota has deprived Class Members of the benefit of their bargain, exposed them 

all to a dangerous safety Defect, and caused them to expend money at its dealerships or other 

third-party repair facilities and/or take other remedial measures related to the Glass Roof Defect 

contained in the Class Vehicles. 

90. Toyota has not recalled the Class Vehicles to repair the Glass Roof Defect, has 

not issued any bulletins or instructions to its dealerships regarding the Glass Roof Defect, has not 

offered to its customers a suitable repair or replacement of parts related to the Glass Roof Defect 

free of charge, and has not reimbursed all Class Vehicle owners and leaseholders who incurred 

costs for repairs related to the Glass Roof Defect. 

91. Class Members have not received the value for which they bargained when they 

purchased or leased the Class Vehicles. 

92. As a result of the Glass Roof Defect, the value of the Class Vehicles has 

diminished, including without limitation, the resale value of the Class Vehicles. Reasonable 

consumers, like Plaintiffs, expect and assume that a vehicle’s panoramic roof is not defective and 

will not fracture or explode for no reason at all or under circumstances that would not cause nondefective panoramic roofs to similarly fail. Plaintiffs and Class Members further expect and 

assume that Toyota will not sell or lease vehicles with known safety defects, such as the Glass 

Case 4:23-cv-00262-SDJ Document 1 Filed 03/29/23 Page 30 of 50 PageID #: 30
31 

CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT 

Roof Defect, and will fully disclose any such defect to consumers prior to purchase or offer a 

suitable non-defective repair. They do not expect that Toyota would fail to disclose the Glass 

Roof Defect to them, and then refuse to remedy the defect under Toyota’s warranty. 

CLASS ACTION ALLEGATIONS 

A. The Classes 

93. Plaintiffs bring this action on their own behalf, and on behalf of a nationwide 

class pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 23(a), 23(b)(2), and/or 23(b)(3). 

Nationwide Class: All persons or entities in the United States who are current or former 

owners and/or lessees of a Class Vehicle. 

94. In addition, and pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 23(c)(5), Plaintiffs seek to represent 

the following state-specific class: 

California Class: All persons or entities who purchased or leased any 2021 Toyota 

RAV4 vehicle in the State of California (the “California Class”). 

95. Toyota and its employees or agents are excluded from the Class. 

B. Numerosity 

96. Upon information and belief, the Classes are each so numerous that joinder of all 

members is impracticable. While the exact number and identities of individual members of the 

Classes are unknown at this time, such information being in the sole possession of Defendants 

and obtainable by Plaintiffs only through the discovery process, Plaintiffs believe, and on that 

basis allege, that thousands of Class Vehicles have been sold and leased nationwide and 

throughout California and Arizona. 

C. Common Questions of Law and Fact 

97. There are questions of law and fact common to the Class that predominate over 

any questions affecting only individual Class members. These questions include: 

Case 4:23-cv-00262-SDJ Document 1 Filed 03/29/23 Page 31 of 50 PageID #: 31
32 

CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT 

a. whether the Class Vehicles suffer from the Glass Roof Defect; 

b. whether the Glass Roof Defect constitutes an unreasonable safety hazard; 

c. whether Defendants know about the Glass Roof Defect and, if so, how long 

Defendants have known of the Defect; 

d. whether the defective nature of the Class Vehicles’ panoramic roofs constitutes a 

material defect; 

e. whether Defendants had and have a duty to disclose the defective nature of the 

Class Vehicles’ panoramic roofs to Plaintiffs and the other Class Members; 

f. whether Plaintiffs and the other Class Members are entitled to equitable relief, 

including, but not limited to, a preliminary and/or permanent injunction; 

g. whether Defendants knew or reasonably should have known of the Glass Roof 

Defect contained in the Class Vehicles before they sold or leased them to Class 

Members; and 

h. Whether Defendants breached their express warranty and the implied warranty of 

merchantability, engaged in fraudulent concealment and unjust enrichment, and 

whether Defendants violated the California Consumers Legal Remedies Act, Cal. 

Civ. Code §§ 1750 et seq., the California Unfair Competition Law, Cal. Bus. & 

Prof. Code, §§ 17200 et seq., the Song-Beverly Consumer Warranty Act, Cal. Civ. 

Code §§ 1791.1, 1791.2, 1792, and 1793 et seq., breached express warranty under 

Cal. Comm. Code § 2313, and whether their conduct constitutes a breach of express 

and implied warranties under the Magnuson-Moss Warranty Act. 

Case 4:23-cv-00262-SDJ Document 1 Filed 03/29/23 Page 32 of 50 PageID #: 32
33 

CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT 

D. Typicality 

98. The Plaintiffs’ claims are typical of the claims of the Classes since Plaintiffs 

purchased or leased defective Class Vehicles, as did each member of the Classes. Furthermore, 

Plaintiffs and all members of the Classes sustained economic injuries arising out of Defendants’ 

wrongful conduct. Plaintiffs are advancing the same claims and legal theories on behalf of 

themselves and all absent Class members. 

E. Protecting the Interests of the Class Members 

99. Plaintiffs will fairly and adequately protect the interests of the Class and have 

retained counsel experienced in handling class actions and claims involving unlawful business 

practices. Neither Plaintiffs nor their counsel has any interest which might cause them not to 

vigorously pursue this action. 

F. Proceeding Via Class Action is Superior and Advisable 

100. A class action is the superior method for the fair and efficient adjudication of this 

controversy. The injury suffered by each individual Class member is relatively small in 

comparison to the burden and expense of individual prosecution of the complex and extensive 

litigation necessitated by Defendants’ conduct. It would be virtually impossible for members of 

the Class individually to redress effectively the wrongs done to them. Even if the members of 

the Class could afford such individual litigation, the court system could not. Individualized 

litigation presents a potential for inconsistent or contradictory judgments. Individualized 

litigation increases the delay and expense to all parties, and to the court system, presented by the 

complex legal and factual issues of the case. By contrast, the class action device presents far 

fewer management difficulties, and provides the benefits of single adjudication, an economy of 

scale, and comprehensive supervision by a single court. Upon information and belief, members 

Case 4:23-cv-00262-SDJ Document 1 Filed 03/29/23 Page 33 of 50 PageID #: 33
34 

CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT 

of the Class can be readily identified and notified based on, inter alia, Defendants’ vehicle 

identification numbers, warranty claims, registration records, and database of complaints. 

101. Defendants have acted, and refused to act, on grounds generally applicable to the 

Classes, thereby making appropriate final equitable relief with respect to the Classes as a whole. 

FIRST CAUSE OF ACTION 

Breach of Implied and Express Warranties Pursuant to the Magnuson-Moss Warranty 

Act, 15 U.S.C. §2301, et seq.

(Plaintiffs on behalf of the Nationwide Class or in the alternative the California Class) 

102. Plaintiffs incorporate by reference all of the above paragraphs of this Complaint 

as though fully stated herein. 

103. Plaintiffs and members of the Class are each a “consumer” as defined in 15 

U.S.C. § 2301(3). 

104. Defendants are each a “supplier” and “warrantor” as defined in 15 U.S.C. § 

2301(4) and (5). 

105. The Class Vehicles are each a “consumer product” as defined in 15 U.S.C. 

§ 2301(6). 15 U.S.C. § 2310(d)(1) provides a cause of action for any consumer who is damaged 

by the failure of a warrantor to comply with the written and implied warranties. 

106. 15 U.S.C. § 2304(a)(1) requires Defendants, as a warrantors, to remedy any 

defect, malfunction or nonconformance of the Class Vehicles within a reasonable time and 

without charge to the Plaintiffs and Class members. 

107. The Defendants’ sale of the defective Class Vehicles and their failure and/or 

refusal to repair the Class Vehicles’ Glass Roof Defect within the applicable warranty period 

constitutes a breach of the written and implied warranties applicable to the Class Vehicles. 

Case 4:23-cv-00262-SDJ Document 1 Filed 03/29/23 Page 34 of 50 PageID #: 34
35 

CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT 

108. Despite repeated demands, Defendants have failed to remedy the Class Vehicles’ 

defects within a reasonable time, and/or a reasonable number of attempts, thereby breaching the 

written and implied warranties applicable to the Class Vehicles. 

109. As a result of Defendants’ breaches of the written and implied warranties, and 

Defendants’ failure to remedy the same within a reasonable time, Plaintiffs and class members 

have suffered damages. 

SECOND CAUSE OF ACTION 

Unjust Enrichment 

(Plaintiffs on behalf of the Nationwide Class or in the alternative the California Class) 

110. Plaintiffs incorporate by reference all allegations contained in this Complaint as 

though fully stated herein. 

111. Toyota has long known that about the Glass Roof Defect, which it concealed and 

failed to disclose to Plaintiffs and Class Members. 

112. As a result of its fraudulent acts and omissions related to the Glass Roof Defect, 

Toyota obtained monies which rightfully belong to Plaintiffs and the Class Members to the 

detriment of Plaintiffs and Class Members. 

113. Toyota appreciated, accepted, and retained the non-gratuitous benefits conferred 

by Plaintiffs and the proposed Class Members who, without knowledge of the Glass Roof 

Defect, paid a higher price for their vehicles which actually had lower values. Toyota also 

received monies for vehicles that Plaintiffs and the Class Members would not have otherwise 

purchased or leased. 

114. It would be inequitable and unjust for Toyota to retain these wrongfully obtained 

profits. 

Case 4:23-cv-00262-SDJ Document 1 Filed 03/29/23 Page 35 of 50 PageID #: 35
36 

CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT 

115. Toyota’s retention of these wrongfully obtained profits would violate the 

fundamental principles of justice, equity, and good conscience. 

116. As a result of Defendants’ unjust enrichment, Plaintiffs and Class Members have 

suffered damages. 

117. Plaintiffs do not seek restitution under their Unjust Enrichment claim. Rather, 

Plaintiffs and Class Members seek non-restitutionary disgorgement of the financial profits that 

Defendants obtained as a result of their unjust conduct. 

118. Additionally, Plaintiffs seek injunctive relief to compel Defendants to offer, under 

warranty, remediation solutions that Defendants identifies for the Glass Roof Defect. Plaintiffs 

also seek injunctive relief enjoining Defendants from further deceptive distribution, sales, and 

lease practices with respect to Class Vehicles, enjoining Defendants from selling the Class 

Vehicles with the misleading information; compelling Defendants to provide Class members 

with replacement components that do not contain the defects alleged herein; and/or compelling 

Defendants to reform their warranty, in a manner deemed to be appropriate by the Court, to 

cover the injury alleged and to notify all Class Members that such warranty has been reformed. 

Money damages are not an adequate remedy for the above requested non-monetary injunctive 

relief. 

THIRD CAUSE OF ACTION

Violation of the California Consumers Legal Remedies Act, 

§ 1750 et seq. of the California Civil Code 

(Plaintiffs Gamez and Takili on behalf of the California Class) 

119. Plaintiffs incorporate by reference all allegations contained in this Complaint as 

though fully stated herein. 

120. The California Consumers Legal Remedies Act, Cal. Civil Code §§ 1750, et seq.

(“CLRA”) prohibits various deceptive practices in connection with the conduct of a business 

Case 4:23-cv-00262-SDJ Document 1 Filed 03/29/23 Page 36 of 50 PageID #: 36
37 

CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT 

providing goods, property, or services to consumers primarily for personal, family, or household 

purposes. The self-declared purposes of the CLRA are to protect consumers against unfair and 

deceptive business practices and to provide efficient and economical procedures to secure such 

protection. Cal. Civil Code § 1760. 

121. Defendants are each a “person” as defined in Cal. Civil Code § 1761(c). 

122. Plaintiffs Gamez, Takili, and the California Class Members are “consumers” as 

defined in Cal. Civil Code § 1761(d). 

123. The Class Vehicles constitute “goods” and “services,” as defined by Cal. Civ. 

Code § 1761(a) and (b). 

124. Plaintiffs Gamez, Takili, and the California Class Members’ purchases or leases 

of the Class Vehicles constitute “transactions,” as defined by Cal. Civ. Code § 1761(e). 

125. Plaintiffs Gamez, Takili, and the California Class Members purchased or leased 

the Class Vehicles for personal, family, and household purposes, as defined by Cal. Civ. Code § 

1761(d). 

126. Defendants violated California Civil Code § 1770(a)(5), (7), (14), and (16) when 

they sold or leased Plaintiffs Gamez, Takili, and the California Class Members the Class 

Vehicles with knowledge that they contained the Glass Roof Defect and knowingly concealed 

said defects from Plaintiffs Gamez, Takili, and the California Class Members with the intent that 

they rely upon Defendants’ concealment. 

127. The Class Vehicles’ Glass Roof Defect poses an unreasonable safety risk to 

consumers and other members of the public with whom they share the road. Defendants had 

exclusive knowledge of the defect and have actively concealed it from consumers. 

Case 4:23-cv-00262-SDJ Document 1 Filed 03/29/23 Page 37 of 50 PageID #: 37
38 

CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT 

128. In the course of Defendants’ business, Defendants willfully failed to disclose and 

actively concealed that the Class Vehicles are defective. The existence of the Glass Roof Defect, 

which manifests in all or substantially all of the Class Vehicles, is material to a reasonable 

consumer in that it poses an unreasonable risk to their safety, may lead to thousands of dollars in 

repair expenses, and causes the Class Vehicles to be worth substantially less than they would 

otherwise be valued. 

129. In purchasing or leasing the Class Vehicles, Plaintiffs Gamez, Takili, and the 

California Class Members were deceived by Defendants’ failure to disclose that the Class 

Vehicles suffered from the Glass Roof Defect as described above, or that Defendants would not 

repair or replace such defect as required under applicable warranties. 

130. In purchasing or leasing the Class Vehicles, Plaintiffs Gamez, Takili, and the 

California Class Members were deceived by Defendants’ failure to disclose that the Class 

Vehicles’ panoramic roofs are substantially likely to fail and explode in the course of ordinary 

use of the Class Vehicles. 

131. Defendants owed Plaintiffs Gamez, Takili, and the California Class Members a 

duty to disclose the truth about the Glass Roof Defect because: 

a. Defendants were in a superior position to know the true state of facts about the 

safety defect in the Class Vehicles’ panoramic roofs; 

b. Defendants knew that the Class Vehicles and their panoramic roofs suffered 

from an inherent defect, were defectively made and/or manufactured, and 

were not suitable for their intended use; 

Case 4:23-cv-00262-SDJ Document 1 Filed 03/29/23 Page 38 of 50 PageID #: 38
39 

CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT 

c. Defendants made partial disclosures about the quality of the Class Vehicles 

without revealing the defective nature of the Class Vehicles and their 

panoramic roofs; and 

d. Defendants actively concealed the defective nature of the Class Vehicles and 

their panoramic roofs from Plaintiffs Gamez, Takili, and the California Class 

Members. 

132. Defendants intentionally and knowingly concealed material facts regarding the 

Class Vehicles with an intent to mislead Plaintiffs Gamez, Takili, and the California Class 

Members. 

133. Plaintiffs Gamez, Takili, and the California Class Members reasonably relied 

upon Defendants’ false misrepresentations. They had no way of knowing that Defendants’ 

representations were false and gravely misleading. 

134. Plaintiffs Gamez, Takili, and the California Class Members were unaware of the 

Glass Roof Defect and would not have purchased the Class Vehicles, or would have paid less for 

the Class Vehicles, had they known, prior to their respective time of purchase or lease, of such 

defects in the Class Vehicles. 

135. As a result of Defendants’ acts, Plaintiffs Gamez, Takili, and the California Class 

Members have suffered damages. Plaintiffs Gamez, Takili, and the California Class Members 

would not have purchased or leased Class Vehicles had the Glass Roof Defect and associated 

risks and costs been disclosed to them. They are left with vehicles of diminished value and 

utility because of such defect, which continues to pose a safety risk and will continue to require 

future repairs and replacement parts at Class Vehicle owners’ expense. 

Case 4:23-cv-00262-SDJ Document 1 Filed 03/29/23 Page 39 of 50 PageID #: 39
40 

CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT 

136. Plaintiffs Gamez, Takili, and the California Class Members seek an order 

requiring Defendants to immediately disclose the existence of the Glass Roof Defect and 

associated risks to all existing and prospective customers, to repair the defect and all resulting 

damage in Class Vehicles free of charge, and to cease selling new or certified pre-owned Class 

Vehicles through their dealerships until the defect is remedied. 

137. Plaintiffs Gamez, Takili provided Defendants with notice of their violations of the 

CLRA pursuant to California Civil Code § 1782(a). To date, Defendants have failed to provide 

appropriate relief for their violations of the CLRA. Therefore, Plaintiffs Gamez, Takili, and the 

California Class Members seek monetary, compensatory, and punitive damages, in addition to 

injunctive and equitable relief. 

FOURTH CAUSE OF ACTION 

Violation of California’s Unfair Competition Law 

Cal. Bus. & Prof. Code §§ 17200, et seq. 

(Plaintiffs Gamez, Miranda, and Takili on behalf of the California Class) 

138. Plaintiffs incorporate by reference all of the above paragraphs of this complaint as 

though fully stated herein. 

139. California’s Unfair Competition Law (“UCL”), California’s Bus. & Prof. Code, § 

17200, prohibits acts of “unfair competition,” including any “unlawful, unfair or fraudulent 

business act or practice” and “unfair, deceptive, untrue or misleading advertising.” 

140. The Class Vehicles’ Glass Roof Defect poses an unreasonable safety risk to 

consumers and other members of the public with whom they share the road. Defendants had 

exclusive knowledge of the defect and have actively concealed it from consumers. 

141. In the course of Defendants’ business, Defendants willfully failed to disclose and 

actively concealed that the Class Vehicles are defective. The existence of the Glass Roof Defect, 

which manifests in all or substantially all of the Class Vehicles, is material to a reasonable 

Case 4:23-cv-00262-SDJ Document 1 Filed 03/29/23 Page 40 of 50 PageID #: 40
41 

CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT 

consumer in that it poses an unreasonable risk to their safety, may lead to thousands of dollars in 

repair expenses, and causes the Class Vehicles to be worth substantially less than they would 

otherwise be valued. 

142. In purchasing or leasing the Class Vehicles, Plaintiffs Gamez, Takili, and the 

California Class Members were deceived by Defendants’ failure to disclose that the Class 

Vehicles suffer from the Glass Roof Defect as described above, or that Defendants would not 

cure such defect as required under applicable warranties. 

143. In purchasing or leasing the Class Vehicles, Plaintiffs Gamez, Takili, and the 

California Class Members were deceived by Defendants’ failure to disclose that the Class 

Vehicles’ panoramic roofs are substantially likely to fail in the course of ordinary vehicle 

operation. 

144. Defendants owed Plaintiffs Gamez, Takili, and the California Class Members a 

duty to disclose the truth about the Glass Roof Defect because: 

a. Defendants were in a superior position to know the true state of facts about the 

safety defect in the Class Vehicles’ panoramic roofs; 

b. Defendants knew that the Class Vehicles and their panoramic roofs suffered 

from an inherent defect, were defectively designed and/or manufactured, and 

were not suitable for their intended use; 

c. Defendants made partial disclosures about the quality of the Class Vehicles 

without revealing the defective nature of the Class Vehicles and their 

panoramic roofs; and 

Case 4:23-cv-00262-SDJ Document 1 Filed 03/29/23 Page 41 of 50 PageID #: 41
42 

CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT 

d. Defendants actively concealed the defective nature of the Class Vehicles and 

their panoramic roofs from Plaintiffs Gamez, Takili, and the California Class 

Members. 

145. Defendants intentionally and knowingly concealed material facts regarding the 

Class Vehicles with the intent to mislead Plaintiffs Gamez, Takili, and the California Class 

Members. 

146. Plaintiffs Gamez, Takili, and the California Class Members reasonably relied 

upon Defendants’ false misrepresentations. They had no way of knowing that Defendants’ 

representations were false and gravely misleading. 

147. Plaintiffs Gamez, Takili, and the California Class Members were unaware of the 

Glass Roof Defect and that the Class Vehicles’ panoramic roofs are substantially likely to fail in 

the course of normal everyday driving conditions and would not have purchased the Class 

Vehicles, or would have paid less for the Class Vehicles, had they known, prior to their 

respective time of purchase or lease, of such defects in the Class Vehicles. 

148. Plaintiffs Gamez, Takili, and the California Class Members are reasonable 

consumers who do not expect their vehicles to suffer from the Glass Roof Defect. 

149. Defendants knew the Class Vehicles and their panoramic roofs suffered from 

inherent defects, were defectively designed or manufactured, would fail prematurely, and were 

not suitable for their intended use. 

150. In failing to disclose the defects with the Class Vehicles’ panoramic roofs, 

Defendants have knowingly and intentionally concealed material facts and breached their duty 

not to do so. 

Case 4:23-cv-00262-SDJ Document 1 Filed 03/29/23 Page 42 of 50 PageID #: 42
43 

CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT 

151. The facts Defendants concealed from or failed to disclose to Plaintiffs Gamez, 

Takili, and the California Class Members are material in that a reasonable person would have 

considered them to be important in deciding whether to purchase or lease the Class Vehicles. 

Had Plaintiffs Gamez, Takili, and the California Class Members known that the Class Vehicles 

suffered from the Glass Roof Defect and posed a safety hazard, they would not have purchased 

or leased the Class Vehicles or would have paid less for them. 

152. Defendants continued to conceal the defective nature of the Class Vehicles and 

the Glass Roof Defect even after the Class Members began to report problems. 

153. Defendants’ conduct was and is likely to deceive consumers. 

154. Defendants’ acts, conduct and practices were unlawful, in that they constituted: 

a. Violations of the California Consumer Legal Remedies Act; 

b. Violations of the Song-Beverly Consumer Warranty Act; and 

c. Violations of the express warranty provisions of California Commercial Code 

section 2313. 

155. By their conduct, Defendants have engaged in unfair competition and unlawful, 

unfair, and fraudulent business practices. 

156. Defendants’ unfair or deceptive acts or practices occurred repeatedly in 

Defendants’ trade or business and were capable of deceiving a substantial portion of the 

purchasing public. 

157. As a direct and proximate result of Defendants’ unfair and deceptive practices, 

Plaintiffs Gamez, Takili, and the California Class Members have suffered and will continue to 

suffer actual damages. 

158. The Class Vehicles are worth less with the Glass Roof Defect. 

Case 4:23-cv-00262-SDJ Document 1 Filed 03/29/23 Page 43 of 50 PageID #: 43
44 

CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT 

159. Defendants have been unjustly enriched and should be required to make 

restitution to Plaintiffs Gamez, Takili, and the California Class Members pursuant to §§ 17203 

and 17204 of the Business & Professions Code. 

160. Further, Plaintiffs Gamez, Takili, and the California Class Members seek an order 

enjoining Defendants from committing such unlawful, unfair, and fraudulent business practices, 

and seek the full amount of money Plaintiffs Gamez, Takili, and the California Class Members 

paid for the Class Vehicles and/or restitutionary disgorgement of profits from Defendants. 

Plaintiffs also seek attorneys’ fees and costs under Cal Code Civ. Proc. § 1021.5. 

FIFTH CAUSE OF ACTION 

Breach of Implied Warranty Pursuant to Song-Beverly 

Consumer Warranty Act – Cal. Civ. Code §§ 1792 and 1791.1, et seq. 

(Plaintiffs Gamez and Takili on behalf of the California Class) 

161. Plaintiffs incorporate by reference all of the above paragraphs of this Complaint 

as though fully stated herein. 

162. Defendants are each a merchant with respect to motor vehicles. 

163. The Class Vehicles were subject to implied warranties of merchantability running 

from the Defendants to Plaintiffs Gamez, Takili, and the California Class Members. 

164. An implied warranty that the Class Vehicles were merchantable arose by 

operation of law as part of the sale or lease of the Class Vehicles. 

165. Defendants breached the implied warranty of merchantability in that the Class 

Vehicles suffer from the above-described Glass Roof Defect and thus were not in merchantable 

condition when Plaintiffs Gamez, Takili, and the California Class Members purchased or leased 

them, or at any time thereafter, and the Class Vehicles are unfit for the ordinary purposes for 

which such vehicles are used. 

Case 4:23-cv-00262-SDJ Document 1 Filed 03/29/23 Page 44 of 50 PageID #: 44
45 

CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT 

166. Defendants have breached the implied warranty of merchantability because the 

Class Vehicles when sold or leased would not pass without objection in the trade. 

167. As a result of Defendants’ breach of the applicable implied warranties, owners 

and lessees of the Class Vehicles suffered an ascertainable loss of money, property, and/or value 

of their Class Vehicles. 

168. Additionally, as a result of the Glass Roof Defect, Plaintiffs Gamez, Takili, and 

the California Class Members were harmed and suffered actual damages. 

169. Defendants’ actions, as complained of herein, breached the implied warranty that 

the Class Vehicles were of merchantable quality and fit for such use in violation of California 

Civil Code §§ 1792 and 1791.1. 

SIXTH CAUSE OF ACTION 

Breach of Express Warranty under Cal. Comm. Code § 2313 

(Plaintiffs Gamez and Takili on behalf of the California Class) 

170. Plaintiffs incorporate by reference all of the above paragraphs of this Complaint 

as though fully stated herein. 

171. In connection with the sale or lease of the Class Vehicles to Plaintiffs Gamez, 

Takili, and the California Class Members, Defendants provided Plaintiffs Gamez, Takili, and the 

California Class Members with a New Vehicle Limited Warranty, under which they agreed to 

repair or replace original components found to be defective in material or workmanship within 

the first 36 months or 36,000 miles in service, whichever comes first. 

172. Plaintiffs Gamez, Takili, and the California Class Members relied on Defendants’ 

warranties when they agreed to purchase or lease the Class Vehicles, and Defendants’ warranties 

were part of the basis of the bargain. 

173. Defendants breached these express warranties in that the Class Vehicles suffer 

from the above-described defects with the panoramic roofs, which substantially impair the Class 

Case 4:23-cv-00262-SDJ Document 1 Filed 03/29/23 Page 45 of 50 PageID #: 45
46 

CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT 

Vehicles’ use, safety, and value to Plaintiffs Gamez, Takili, and the California Class Members, 

but Defendants have failed to cover the costs of repairing or replacing the defective panoramic 

roofs under their warranty. 

174. Specifically, as a result of a defect in the manufacturing process and/or the use of 

defective materials, each of the California Class Vehicles came off the assembly line in 

substandard condition and was manufactured in such a way that their panoramic roofs do not 

function or perform as designed and result in the Glass Roof Defect, and the Class Vehicles 

differ from the vehicles that Defendants intended to sell. 

175. Plaintiffs Gamez, Takili, and the California Class Members have given 

Defendants reasonable opportunities to cure said defects under Toyota’s warranty, but 

Defendants have failed or refused to repair or replace the defective panoramic roofs under 

Defendants’ New Vehicle Limited Warranty. 

176. As a result of said nonconformities, Plaintiffs Gamez, Takili, and the California 

Class Members cannot reasonably rely on the Class Vehicles for the ordinary purpose of safe, 

comfortable, and efficient transportation. 

177. Plaintiffs Gamez, Takili, and the California Class Members could not reasonably 

have discovered said nonconformities with the Class Vehicles prior to their acceptance of the 

Class Vehicles. 

178. Plaintiffs Gamez, Takili, and the California Class Members would not have 

purchased the Class Vehicles, or would have paid less for the Class Vehicles, had they known, 

prior to their respective time of purchase or lease, that the panoramic roofs did not function as 

advertised and warranted, and that necessary repairs to cover the defective panoramic roofs 

would not be covered under Defendants’ warranty. 

Case 4:23-cv-00262-SDJ Document 1 Filed 03/29/23 Page 46 of 50 PageID #: 46
47 

CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT 

179. As a result of Defendants’ breach of express warranties, Plaintiffs Gamez, Takili, 

and the California Class Members have been damaged in an amount that is the difference 

between the value of Class Vehicles if they had possessed the qualities and attributes represented 

and the value of the Class Vehicles Plaintiffs Gamez, Takili, and the California Class Members 

actually received. 

SEVENTH CAUSE OF ACTION 

Breach of Express Warranty Pursuant to Song-Beverly 

Consumer Warranty Act – Cal. Civ. Code §§ 1793 and 1791.2, et seq. 

(Plaintiffs Gamez and Takili on behalf of the California Class) 

180. Plaintiffs incorporate by reference all of the above paragraphs of this Complaint 

as though fully stated herein. 

181. Plaintiffs Gamez, Takili, and the California Class Members are each a “buyer” as 

defined in Cal. Civ. Code § 1791(b). 

182. Defendants are each a “manufacturer” as defined in Cal. Civ. Code § 1791(j). 

183. The Class Vehicles are each a “consumer good” as defined in Cal. Civ. Code § 

1791(a). 

184. Cal. Civ. Code § 1794 provides a cause of action for any consumer who is 

damaged by the failure of a manufacturer to comply with an express warranty. 

185. In connection with the sale or lease of the Class Vehicles to Plaintiffs Gamez, 

Takili, and the California Class Members, Defendants provided Plaintiffs Gamez, Takili, and the 

California Class Members with express warranties within the meaning of Cal. Civ. Code §§ 

1791.2 and 1793.2. 

186. Specifically, in connection with the sale or lease of the Class Vehicles to Plaintiffs 

Gamez, Takili, and the California Class Members, Defendants provided Plaintiffs Gamez, Takili, 

and the California Class Members with a New Vehicle Limited Warranty, under which they 

Case 4:23-cv-00262-SDJ Document 1 Filed 03/29/23 Page 47 of 50 PageID #: 47
48 

CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT 

agreed to repair or replace original components found to be defective in material or workmanship 

within the first 36 months or 36,000 miles in service, whichever comes first. 

187. Plaintiffs Gamez, Takili, and the California Class Members relied on Defendants’ 

warranties when they agreed to purchase or lease the Class Vehicles and Defendants’ warranties 

were part of the basis of the bargain. 

188. Defendants breached these express warranties in that the Class Vehicles suffer 

from the above-described defects with the panoramic roofs, which substantially impair the Class 

Vehicles’ use, safety, and value to Plaintiffs Gamez, Takili, and the California Class Members. 

189. Plaintiffs Gamez, Takili, and the California Class Members have given 

Defendants reasonable opportunities to cure said defects, but Defendants have been unable to do 

so within a reasonable time. 

190. As a result of said nonconformities, Plaintiffs Gamez, Takili, and the California 

Class Members cannot reasonably rely on the Class Vehicles for the ordinary purpose of safe, 

comfortable, and efficient transportation. 

191. Plaintiffs Gamez, Takili, and the California Class Members could not reasonably 

have discovered said nonconformities with the Class Vehicles prior to Plaintiffs Gamez, Takili, 

and the California Class Members’ acceptance of the Class Vehicles. 

192. Plaintiffs Gamez, Takili, and the California Class Members would not have 

purchased the Class Vehicles, or would have paid less for the Class Vehicles, had they known, 

prior to their respective time of purchase or lease, that the panoramic roofs did not function as 

advertised and warranted. 

193. As a result of Defendants’ breach of express warranties, Plaintiffs Gamez, Takili, 

and the California Class Members have been damaged in an amount that is the difference 

Case 4:23-cv-00262-SDJ Document 1 Filed 03/29/23 Page 48 of 50 PageID #: 48
49 

CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT 

between the value of Class Vehicles if they had possessed the qualities and attributes represented 

and the value of the Class Vehicles Plaintiffs Gamez, Takili, and the California Class Members 

actually received. 

DEMAND FOR RELIEF 

WHEREFORE, Plaintiffs, on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated, pray 

for judgment against Defendants as follows: 

a. An order certifying the proposed Classes, designating Plaintiffs as named 

representative of the Classes, and designating the undersigned as Class 

Counsel; 

b. An order awarding Plaintiffs and class members their actual damages, 

incidental and consequential damages, punitive damages, and/or other form of 

monetary relief provided by law; 

c. An order awarding Plaintiffs and the classes restitution, disgorgement, or 

other equitable relief as the Court deems proper; 

d. Equitable relief including, but not limited to, replacement of the Class 

Vehicles with new vehicles, or repair of the defective Class Vehicles with an 

extension of the express warranties and service contracts which are or were 

applicable to the Class Vehicles; 

e. A declaration requiring Defendants to comply with the various provisions of 

the state and federal consumer protection statutes herein alleged and to make 

all the required disclosures; 

f. Reasonable attorneys’ fees and costs; 

g. Pre-judgment and post-judgment interest, as provided by law; 

Case 4:23-cv-00262-SDJ Document 1 Filed 03/29/23 Page 49 of 50 PageID #: 49
50 

CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT 

h. Plaintiffs demand that Defendants perform a recall, and repair all Class 

Vehicles; and 

i. Such other and further relief as this Court deems just and proper. 

TRIAL BY JURY DEMANDED ON ALL COUNTS 

DATED: March 29, 2023 

 

 By: /s/ Jody B. Burton 

 Jody B. Burton, Esq.

 Lemberg Law, LLC 

 43 Danbury Road 

 Wilton, CT 06897 

 Tel.: (203) 653-2250 ext. 5501 

 Fax: (203) 653-3424 

 Email: jburton@lembegrlaw.com 

 Attorneys for Plaintiffs 

 

Case 4:23-cv-00262-SDJ Document 1 Filed 03/29/23 Page 50 of 50 PageID #: 50