Grodzitsky v. American Honda Motor Co., No. 18-55417 (9th Cir. 2020)
Annotate this Case
The Ninth Circuit affirmed the district court's order excluding plaintiff's expert opinion, and denying class certification in a design defect case concerning 2003–2008 Honda Pilot vehicles. Plaintiff's expert opined that the window regulators were not sufficiently durable when exposed to vibrations at certain frequencies.
The panel held that the district court did not abuse its discretion in excluding plaintiff's expert opinion under Daubert v. Merrell Dow Pharms., Inc., 509 U.S. 579 (1993); the district court properly held that the expert's opinion was unreliable due to his failure to utilize a workable standard supporting his design defect theory, the lack of supporting studies or testing to demonstrate a common design defect, and deficiencies in the expert's methodology; and, in the absence of the report, plaintiffs failed to demonstrate commonality, as the remaining evidence consisted solely of highly individualized complaints.
Court Description: Expert Opinion / Class Certification. The panel affirmed the district court’s order excluding plaintiff’s expert opinion, and denying class certification in a design defect case concerning 2003–2008 Honda Pilot vehicles. The proposed class were purchasers and lessees of Honda Pilots who alleged that the vehicles were defectively designed when the regulators failed to properly support the side windows, rendering the windows inoperable. Plaintiff’s expert Glenn Akhavein opined that the window regulators were not sufficiently durable when exposed to vibrations at certain frequencies. The district court excluded the opinion as deficient under Daubert v. Merrell Dow Pharms., Inc., 509 U.S. 579 (1993). * The Honorable Jed S. Rakoff, United States District Judge for the Southern District of New York, sitting by designation. GRODZITSKY V. AMERICAN HONDA MOTOR CO. 3 The panel held that the district court properly excluded Akhavein’s opinion under Daubert. The district court properly held that Akhavein’s opinion was unreliable due to: Akhavein’s failure to utilize a workable standard supporting his design defect theory; the lack of supporting studies or testing to demonstrate a common design defect; and deficiencies in Akhavein’s methodology. The panel further held that in the absence of the expert report, the plaintiffs failed to demonstrate commonality for a putative class action, as the remaining evidence consisted solely of highly individualized complaints. Judge Murguia dissented. Although she agreed that the district court acted within its discretion in excluding certain parts of Akhavein’s expert testimony, she would hold that the district court abused its discretion when it excluded the testimony in its entirety, and she would reverse the district court’s order excluding Akhavein’s expert testimony. Judge Murguia would also reverse the district court’s denial of class certification and remand so that the district court could reconsider plaintiffs’ motion in light of the admissible portions of Akhavein’s testimony.
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.