Case 2:21-cv-04030-VAP-JC Document 1 Filed 05/13/21 Page 1 of 115 Page ID #:1

1 Alex R. Straus, SBN 321366 [email protected] 2 GREG COLEMAN LAW PC 3 16748 McCormack Street Los Angeles, CA 91436 4 T: 917-471-1894 5 F: 310-496-3176

6 Proposed Class Counsel 7 [Additional counsel on signature page] 8 9 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10

11 AMADO MUNOZ, CAROLYN Case No.: 12 HEIER, BEN HU, GARY TETRAULT, MATTHEW CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT 13 ROBINSON, MICHAEL (Demand for Jury Trial) 14 SCHWARTZ, FRANK 15 COSTOBILE, RACHEL FAIRCHILD, JAMES TILLERY, 16 and LINGYAN YIN individually and 17 on behalf of all others similarly situated, 18

Plaintiffs, 19 v.

20 AMERICAN HONDA MOTOR CO., 21 INC., a California Corporation, and

22 HONDA NORTH AMERICA, INC., a Delaware Corporation, 23 24 Defendants.

25 26 27 Plaintiffs Amado Munoz, Carolyn Heier, Ben Hu, Gary Tetrault, Matthew 28 Robinson, Michael Schwartz, Frank Costobile, Rachel Fairchild, James Tillery, and

Class Action Complaint - 1 - Case 2:21-cv-04030-VAP-JC Document 1 Filed 05/13/21 Page 2 of 115 Page ID #:2

1 Lingyan Yin (“Plaintiffs”), individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, 2 bring this action for damages and equitable relief against Defendants American 3 Honda Motor Co., Inc. (“AHM”) and Honda North America, Inc. (“HNA”) 4 (collectively “Honda” or “Defendants”). 5 I. INTRODUCTION 6 1. This is a class action lawsuit brought by Plaintiffs on behalf of 7 themselves and a class of current and former owners and lessees of 2016-2019 model 8 year Honda Civics (“Class Vehicles”)1 designed, manufactured, distributed, 9 warranted and sold/leased by Honda, and equipped with uniformly defective air 10 conditioning systems (“AC System”).2 11 2. On information and belief, the AC System in all Class Vehicles is 12 substantially the same, from a mechanical engineering and design standpoint, in that 13 the AC Systems in all Class Vehicles are composed of and employ identical 14 components to deliver cooled air to the passenger cabin. 15 3. Unbeknownst to Plaintiffs and other consumers, however, Honda’s 16 Class Vehicles are equipped with AC Systems that are guaranteed to fail prematurely 17 and well in advance of their expected useful life. Specifically, Class Vehicle AC 18 Systems suffer from a serious defect in materials, workmanship and/or design that 19 cause the AC Systems to (a) crack and leak refrigerant; (b) lose pressure within the 20 AC System; and (c) fail to cool Vehicle passenger cabins (“the Defect”). 21 4. Model Year 2016 Class Vehicles represent Honda’s first attempt to 22 equip Civic vehicles with AC Systems that utilize R-1234yf refrigerant, which 23 purportedly is more environmentally friendly than R-134a refrigerants, long used in 24 modern automotive AC Systems.

25 1 Plaintiffs reserve the right to amend or add to the vehicle models included in the definition of 26 Class Vehicles after conducting discovery. 2 Plaintiffs include individuals who previously brought similar claims against Honda, but which 27 were deemed not yet ripe which were dismissed without prejudice and without leave to amend on July 20, 2020. See Elkins, et al. v. American Honda Motor Co., Inc., et al., Case No. 8:19-cv- 28 00818-JLS-KES (Dkt. 60). See Section IV(F)(10) for further discussion of the Elkins matter.

Class Action Complaint - 2 - Case 2:21-cv-04030-VAP-JC Document 1 Filed 05/13/21 Page 3 of 115 Page ID #:3

1 5. Unfortunately for unsuspecting Class members, however, the R-1234yf 2 compatible AC System Honda designed for and equipped in Class Vehicles is prone 3 to develop leaks throughout the system due to a defect in materials, workmanship 4 and/or design that renders the System’s components unable to withstand the 5 pressures, forces and reactions that the System encounters and experiences when 6 circulating R-1234yf to cool Vehicle cabins during normal, expected and foreseeable 7 usage and conditions. 8 6. Although the Defect may first manifest as leaks in the Vehicles’ 9 condensers or compressors, it also causes other vehicle components (such as 10 evaporators and discharge and suction lines) to fail. 11 7. The AC System Defect sometimes manifests at low mileages and 12 within Honda’s New Vehicle Express Warranty periods, however, most frequently 13 Honda shirks its warranty obligations. Honda’s authorized dealers frequently refuse 14 to perform repairs for in-warranty Class Vehicles until and unless Class Members 15 pay an exorbitant “diagnostic fee,” after which dealerships inspect the vehicles and 16 often claim that the AC System showed signs of impact from “road debris,” which 17 Honda claims voids warranty coverage, or assert that a leak could not be detected. 18 8. When Honda refuses to provide warranty coverage, consumers are 19 forced to pay between $150.00 and $2000.00 out of pocket to repair their AC 20 Systems with the same defective parts. 21 9. Regardless of whether Honda provides warranty coverage for one 22 failed component and claims it has permanently repaired the AC System, however, 23 that repair typically proves ineffective. Other AC System components invariably fail 24 outside the warranty period, forcing Class Members into a never-ending and 25 expensive game of whack-a-mole involving a vehicle for which they paid tens of 26 thousands of dollars. 27 10. The Defect is so pervasive that replacement AC System condensers, 28 compressors, and evaporators are perpetually on national backorder. The lag time

Class Action Complaint - 3 - Case 2:21-cv-04030-VAP-JC Document 1 Filed 05/13/21 Page 4 of 115 Page ID #:4

1 for replacement parts is long—often many months—during which Plaintiffs and 2 Class Members must either suffer without a functioning AC System or obtain 3 aftermarket parts from a third party at their own expense, which, according to 4 Honda’s warranties, will preclude such customers from participating in a recall 5 campaign should Honda ever decide to initiate one. 6 11. Indeed, once it manifests, the Defect prohibits Plaintiffs and Class 7 Members from using their AC Systems—a once-optional feature that now comes 8 standard in almost every vehicle sold in the United States. It also forces Class 9 members to pay for equally defective replacement parts that are susceptible to a 10 repeat failure, thus impairing Class Vehicles’ central function: providing safe, 11 comfortable, and reliable transportation. 12 12. The AC System Defect also imposes safety risks on Plaintiffs and Class 13 Members by exposing vehicle occupants to unsafe temperatures and decreasing 14 visibility due a failed AC System’s inability to clear foggy vehicle windshields. 15 13. On information and belief, and as evidenced by a July 2016 Technical 16 Service Bulletin concerning the Defect, Honda learned of the AC System Defect 17 long before it began selling or leasing Class Vehicles, through sources such as: pre- 18 release evaluation and testing; repair data; replacement part sales data; early 19 consumer complaints made directly to Honda, collected by the National Highway 20 Transportation Safety Administration’s Office of Defect Investigation (“NHTSA 21 ODI”), and/or posted on public online vehicle owner forums; testing done in 22 response to those complaints; aggregate data from Honda dealers; and other internal 23 sources. 24 14. Despite longstanding knowledge of the Defect, Honda failed to disclose 25 and actively concealed the AC System Defect from Class Members and the public 26 and continued to market and advertise the Class Vehicles as “a new benchmark in 27 the compact class in terms of spaciousness, fuel efficiency, safety features, interior 28

Class Action Complaint - 4 - Case 2:21-cv-04030-VAP-JC Document 1 Filed 05/13/21 Page 5 of 115 Page ID #:5

1 quality and dynamic performance,” and as delivering “premium comfort” through a 2 “[d]ual-zone automatic climate control” system, which they do not. 3 15. Honda refused—and continues to refuse—to disclose the AC System 4 Defect to prospective customers, and actively conceals and concealed the Defect 5 from Plaintiffs and Class Members prior to and at the time of sale. Specifically, 6 Honda chose to conceal from Class Members that the AC System suffers from a 7 defect in materials, workmanship and/or design and eventually will require costly 8 repairs, and that the Defect reduced the value of the Vehicles at the time of sale 9 and/or will reduce the resale value of the Vehicles due to the defective nature of the 10 AC System. 11 16. Moreover, because Honda has failed to provide an effective in-warranty 12 fix for the Defect within a reasonable time and forced Class Members to wait 13 unreasonable lengths of time for repairs and/or pay out-of-pocket to replace failed 14 AC System components with equally defective replacement parts, its warranties fail 15 of their essential purpose. 16 17. Because of Honda’s alleged misconduct, Plaintiffs and Class Members 17 have incurred, and will continue to incur, out-of-pocket, unreimbursed costs and 18 expenses relating to the AC System Defect and purchased Class Vehicles that were 19 worth less at the time of sale and/or will be worth less at the time of resale. 20 Accordingly, Plaintiffs, on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated, 21 bring this action for monetary and equitable relief. 22 II. PARTIES 23 PLAINTIFFS 24 18. Plaintiffs in this matter are owners and lessees of 2016-2019 Honda 25 Civics who purchased their Class Vehicles and reside in various states, including 26 California, Connecticut, Florida, Oregon, Pennsylvania, Virginia, and Washington. 27 DEFENDANTS 28

Class Action Complaint - 5 - Case 2:21-cv-04030-VAP-JC Document 1 Filed 05/13/21 Page 6 of 115 Page ID #:6

1 19. Defendant American Honda Motor Co., Inc. (“AHM”) is a corporation 2 organized under the laws of the State of California and has its principal place of 3 business in Torrance, California. AHM operates, maintains offices, and/or conducts 4 business in all fifty states. 5 20. Defendant Honda North America, Inc. (“HNA”) is a Delaware 6 corporation with its principal place of business in Torrance, California. 7 21. Defendants (collectively referred to as “Honda”) are the developers, 8 designers, manufacturers, assemblers, testers, inspectors, marketers, advertisers, 9 distributors, sellers, and/or warrantors of the Class Vehicles. 10 22. The division of liability, jointly or severally or both, among Defendants 11 AHM and HNA requires discovery of facts known only to Defendants. 12 III. JURISDICTION AND VENUE 13 23. This Court has subject matter jurisdiction over this action under the 14 Class Action Fairness Act because there is minimal diversity, the proposed Class 15 and Subclasses each exceed one hundred members, and the matter in controversy 16 exceeds the sum or value of $5,000,000.00 exclusive of interests and costs. 28 U.S.C. 17 § 1332(d)(2)(A). 18 24. This Court can exercise personal jurisdiction over Defendants because 19 both Defendants are incorporated in California and headquartered in Torrance, 20 California. Defendants’ actions summarized in this Complaint occurred in this 21 District so as to subject them to in personam jurisdiction in this District. 22 25. This Court can exercise supplemental jurisdiction over Plaintiffs’ state- 23 law claims under 28 U.S.C. § 1367. 24 26. Venue is proper in this District under 28 U.S.C. § 1391(a)-(c). 25 Defendants are registered to and do conduct substantial business in the State of 26 California, within this District, and otherwise maintain requisite minimum contacts 27 with the State of California. Additionally, Defendants distribute Class Vehicles in 28

Class Action Complaint - 6 - Case 2:21-cv-04030-VAP-JC Document 1 Filed 05/13/21 Page 7 of 115 Page ID #:7

1 this District and receive substantial compensation and profits from the sale and lease 2 of Class Vehicles in this District. 3 IV. FACTUAL ALLEGATIONS 4 5 A. Plaintiffs’ Experiences 6 Plaintiff Amado Munoz 7 27. Plaintiff Amado Munoz (“Plaintiff Munoz”) is a citizen of the State of 8 California, and currently resides in Covina, California. In or around August 2017, 9 Plaintiff Munoz purchased a new 2017 Honda Civic from Sierra Honda, an 10 authorized Honda dealer in Monrovia, California, for personal, family, and/or 11 household use.3 12 28. Prior to purchasing his Class Vehicle, Plaintiff Munoz test drove the 13 vehicle, viewed advertisements for the vehicle and the vehicle’s window sticker, and 14 spoke with Honda sales representatives concerning the vehicle’s features, none of 15 which disclosed the Defect to Plaintiff. 16 29. In November 2018, with approximately 42,000 miles on the odometer, 17 the AC System in Plaintiff Munoz’s Class Vehicle failed without warning. 18 30. Plaintiff Munoz subsequently brought his Class Vehicle to Sierra 19 Honda, where an authorized Honda technician performed a diagnostic examination 20 and informed him his vehicle’s compressor had failed and was leaking Freon. 21 Plaintiff Munoz was told that a rock may have hit the compressor. 22 31. While part of the $1700 charge to replace the compressor was covered 23 by Plaintiff Munoz’s extended warranty, Plaintiff Munoz paid $130.00 for the 24 diagnostic and $483.50 for the compressor to be replaced and the system recharged. 25 32. Two weeks after Plaintiff Munoz had his compressor repaired, the air 26 conditioning in his Class Vehicle failed again. When Plaintiff Munoz brought his 27

28 3 See also discussion of prior Elkins litigation in Section IV(F)(10) below.

Class Action Complaint - 7 - Case 2:21-cv-04030-VAP-JC Document 1 Filed 05/13/21 Page 8 of 115 Page ID #:8

1 Class Vehicle to Sierra Honda, he was told that the condenser had failed. Once again, 2 Sierra Honda said road debris was the likely culprit. However, Sierra Honda refused 3 to fix the condenser under warranty. The manager of Sierra Honda told Plaintiff 4 Munoz, “If you want to take me to court, take me to court.” Plaintiff Munoz refused 5 to pay for a new condenser. 6 33. Plaintiff Munoz contacted Defendant Honda on several occasions and 7 spoke with an employee named David at extension 87158 but was told that they 8 could not help him with the condenser if it was out-of-warranty. 9 34. Neither Defendants nor their agents, dealers, or other representatives 10 informed Plaintiff Munoz of the Defect’s existence at any time either prior to or 11 following his purchase, whether at the point of sale or otherwise. 12 35. Plaintiff Munoz has suffered an ascertainable loss as a result of 13 Defendants’ omissions and/or misrepresentations associated with the Defect, 14 including but not limited to the out of pocket cost he incurred to diagnose and repair 15 the Defect, and the diminished value of his Class Vehicle. Had Defendants 16 disclosed the Defect to Plaintiff Munoz, he would not have bought his Class Vehicle 17 or would have paid less for it. 18 Plaintiff Carolyn Heier 19 36. Plaintiff Carolyn Heier (“Plaintiff Heier”) is a citizen of the State of 20 Virginia, and currently resides in Reston, Virginia. In or around April 2016, Plaintiff 21 Heier purchased a new 2016 Honda Civic from Robertson Honda, an authorized 22 Honda dealer in Los Angeles, California, for personal, family, and/or household use. 23 37. Prior to purchasing her Class Vehicle, Plaintiff Heier test drove the 24 vehicle, viewed advertisements for the vehicle and the vehicle’s window sticker, and 25 spoke with Honda sales representatives concerning the vehicle’s features, none of 26 which disclosed the Defect to Plaintiff. Plaintiff Heier relied on Honda’s 27 misrepresentations and omissions in deciding to purchase her vehicle. 28

Class Action Complaint - 8 - Case 2:21-cv-04030-VAP-JC Document 1 Filed 05/13/21 Page 9 of 115 Page ID #:9

1 38. On or around April 1, 2018, with approximately 17,750 miles on the 2 odometer, the AC system in Plaintiff Heier’s Class Vehicle failed without warning. 3 39. The AC system was repaired under original warranty. 4 40. In 2019, the condenser in Plaintiff Heier’s Class Vehicle failed a second 5 time and was repaired under TSB. 6 41. In 2020, the compressor in Plaintiff Heier’s Class Vehicle failed and 7 Plaintiff Heier paid $1,850.87 out of pocket to repair the compressor at Ourisman 8 Honda of Tysons Corner, Virginia. 9 42. Plaintiff Heier submitted a claim under TSB but was denied over the 10 phone. Defendant Honda refused to send her denial in writing. 11 43. On February 3, 2021, Defendant Honda sent Plaintiff Heier letter 12 claiming that it did not have enough information to evaluate her claim. 13 44. Due to the Defect’s pervasive nature and the fact that AC System 14 repairs appear to restore functionality only temporarily, Plaintiff Heier is not 15 confident that the repairs performed will permanently restore functionality to her AC 16 System. 17 45. Neither Defendants nor their agents, dealers, or other representatives 18 informed Plaintiff Heier of the Defect’s existence at any time either prior to or 19 following her purchase, whether at the point of sale or otherwise. 20 46. Plaintiff Heier has suffered an ascertainable loss as a result of Honda's 21 omissions and/or misrepresentations concerning the Defect, including but not 22 limited to the out-of-pocket cost she incurred to diagnose the Defect, and the 23 diminished value of her Class Vehicle. Had Defendants disclosed the Defect to 24 Plaintiff Heier, she would not have bought her Class Vehicle or would have paid less 25 for it. 26 Plaintiff Ben Hu 27 47. Plaintiff Ben Hu (“Plaintiff Hu”) is a citizen of the State of California, 28 and currently resides in Fremont, California. In or around May 2016, Plaintiff Hu

Class Action Complaint - 9 - Case 2:21-cv-04030-VAP-JC Document 1 Filed 05/13/21 Page 10 of 115 Page ID #:10

1 purchased a new 2016 Honda Civic from Livermore Honda, an authorized Honda 2 dealer in Livermore, California, for personal, family, and/or household use.4 3 48. Prior to purchasing his Class Vehicle, Plaintiff Hu test drove the 4 vehicle, viewed advertisements for the vehicle and the vehicle’s window sticker, and 5 spoke with Honda sales representatives concerning the vehicle’s features, none of 6 which disclosed the Defect to Plaintiff. 7 49. In May 2019, with approximately 17,000 miles on the odometer, the 8 AC System in Plaintiff Hu’s Class Vehicle failed without warning. 9 50. Plaintiff Hu subsequently brought his Class Vehicle to AutoNation 10 Honda in Fremont, California, where an authorized Honda technician performed a 11 diagnostic examination and informed him his Class vehicle had a “faulty” 12 compressor and recommended a replacement. 13 51. Plaintiff Hu paid $2,340.37 for the diagnostic and to replace the 14 compressor and O rings, but does not, and cannot, know whether the repairs cured 15 the Defect in his Class Vehicle. 16 52. Plaintiff Hu contacted Defendant Honda on several occasions and 17 spoke with an employee named Eric Brown at extension 87015 (case number 18 09723008) but was told that because Plaintiff Hu chose to pay the bill at the 19 dealership before contacting Honda Corporate, they were not obligated to help with 20 reimbursement. 21 53. Neither Defendants nor their agents, dealers, or other representatives 22 informed Plaintiff Hu of the Defect’s existence at any time either prior to or 23 following his purchase, whether at the point of sale or otherwise. 24 54. Plaintiff Hu has suffered an ascertainable loss as a result of Defendants’ 25 omissions and/or misrepresentations associated with the Defect, including but not 26 limited to the out of pocket cost he incurred to diagnose and repair the Defect, and 27

28 4 See also discussion of prior Elkins litigation in Section IV(F)(10) below.

Class Action Complaint - 10 - Case 2:21-cv-04030-VAP-JC Document 1 Filed 05/13/21 Page 11 of 115 Page ID #:11

1 the diminished value of his Class Vehicle. Had Defendants disclosed the Defect to 2 Plaintiff Hu, he would not have bought his Class Vehicle or would have paid less 3 for it. 4 Plaintiff Gary Tetrault 5 55. Plaintiff Gary Tetrault (“Plaintiff Tetrault”) is a citizen of the State of 6 Connecticut, and currently resides in Enfield, Connecticut. In or around August 7 2016, Plaintiff Tetrault purchased a new 2016 Honda Civic from Lea Honda, an 8 authorized Honda dealer in Enfield, Connecticut, for personal, family, and/or 9 household use. 10 56. Prior to purchasing his Class Vehicle, Plaintiff Tetrault test drove the 11 vehicle, viewed advertisements for the vehicle and the vehicle’s window sticker, and 12 spoke with Honda sales representatives concerning the vehicle’s features, none of 13 which disclosed the Defect to Plaintiff. Plaintiff Tetrault relied on Honda’s 14 misrepresentations and omissions in deciding to purchase his vehicle. 15 57. On or about June 24, 2020, with approximately 19,680 miles on the 16 odometer, the AC system in Plaintiff Tetrault’s Class Vehicle failed without 17 warning. 18 58. Plaintiff Tetrault brought his Class Vehicle to Lia Honda of Enfield, 19 Connecticut where an authorized Honda technician performed a diagnostic 20 examination and informed him that his Class Vehicle’s condenser and compressor 21 had failed. 22 59. In July 2020 Plaintiff Tetrault had his Class Vehicle’s condenser and 23 compressor replaced at Lia Honda of Enfield, Connecticut. The condenser was 24 repaired under TSB, but Plaintiff Tetrault paid $1,603.19 out of pocket to replace 25 the compressor. 26 60. Neither Defendants nor their agents, dealers, or other representatives 27 informed Plaintiff Tetrault of the Defect’s existence at any time either prior to or 28 following his purchase, whether at the point of sale or otherwise.

Class Action Complaint - 11 - Case 2:21-cv-04030-VAP-JC Document 1 Filed 05/13/21 Page 12 of 115 Page ID #:12

1 61. Plaintiff Tetrault has suffered an ascertainable loss as a result of 2 Defendants’ omissions and/or misrepresentations associated with the Defect, 3 including but not limited to the out of pocket cost he incurred to diagnose and repair 4 the Defect, and the diminished value of his Class Vehicle. Had Defendants disclosed 5 the Defect to Plaintiff Tetrault, he would not have bought his Class Vehicle or would 6 have paid less for it. 7 Plaintiff Matthew Robinson 8 62. Plaintiff Matthew Robinson (“Plaintiff Robinson”) is a citizen of the 9 State of Florida, and currently resides in Windermere, FL. In or around May 2016, 10 Plaintiff Robinson purchased a Certified Pre-Owned 2016 Honda Civic LX from 11 Classic Honda, an authorized Honda dealer in Orlando, Florida, for personal, family, 12 and/or household use. 13 63. Prior to purchasing his Class Vehicle, Plaintiff Robinson viewed 14 advertisements for the vehicle and the vehicle’s window sticker and spoke with 15 Honda sales representatives concerning the vehicle’s features, none of which 16 disclosed the Defect to Plaintiff. Plaintiff Robinson relied on Honda’s 17 misrepresentations and omissions in deciding to purchase his vehicle. 18 64. In May of 2020, with approximately 53,000 miles on the odometer, the 19 AC System in Plaintiff Robinson’s Class Vehicle started failing and making a 20 leaking/hissing sound. A couple of weeks later. The AC System completely failed. 21 65. Plaintiff Robinson subsequently brought his Class Vehicle to 22 Headquarter Honda, located in Clermont, Florida, where an authorized Honda 23 technician performed a diagnostic examination and informed him that his vehicle’s 24 evaporator was leaking Freon and needed to be replaced. 25 66. Plaintiff Robinson paid $189.99 for the diagnostic and $1307.60 for 26 the evaporator to be replaced and the system recharged with Freon on or around May 27 1, 2020. 28

Class Action Complaint - 12 - Case 2:21-cv-04030-VAP-JC Document 1 Filed 05/13/21 Page 13 of 115 Page ID #:13

1 67. Plaintiff Robinson contacted a representative named Daniel from 2 Headquarter Honda, who told Plaintiff Robinson that he would get in contact with 3 corporate and make a goodwill request for the costs of the repairs; however, Plaintiff 4 Robinson’s goodwill request was denied. Honda corporate refused to cover the cost 5 of repair because it claimed that he was 2,000 miles over the applicable warranty. 6 68. Neither Defendants nor their agents, dealers, or other representatives 7 informed Plaintiff Robinson of the Defect’s existence at any time either prior to or 8 following his purchase, whether at the point of sale or otherwise. 9 69. Plaintiff Robinson has suffered an ascertainable loss as a result of 10 Defendants’ omissions and/or misrepresentations associated with the Defect, 11 including but not limited to the out of pocket cost he incurred to diagnose and repair 12 the Defect, and the diminished value of his Class Vehicle. Had Defendants disclosed 13 the Defect to Plaintiff Robinson, he would not have bought his Class Vehicle or 14 would have paid less for it. 15 Plaintiff Michael Schwartz 16 70. Plaintiff Michael Schwartz (“Plaintiff Schwartz”) is a citizen of the 17 State of Oregon, and currently resides in Grants Pass, Oregon. In or around 18 December 2016, Plaintiff Schwartz purchased a new 2017 Honda Civic from Lithia 19 Honda, an authorized Honda dealer in Medford, Oregon, for personal, family, and/or 20 household use. 21 71. Prior to purchasing his Class Vehicle, Plaintiff Schwartz test drove the 22 vehicle, viewed advertisements for the vehicle and the vehicle’s window sticker, and 23 spoke with Honda sales representatives concerning the vehicle’s features, none of 24 which disclosed the Defect to Plaintiff. Plaintiff Schwartz relied on Honda’s 25 misrepresentations and omissions in deciding to purchase his vehicle. 26 72. On or around May 1, 2020, with approximately 28,000 miles on the 27 odometer, the AC system in Plaintiff Schwartz’s Class Vehicle failed without 28 warning.

Class Action Complaint - 13 - Case 2:21-cv-04030-VAP-JC Document 1 Filed 05/13/21 Page 14 of 115 Page ID #:14

1 73. Plaintiff Schwartz brought his Class Vehicle to Lithia Honda in 2 Medford, Oregon where an authorized Honda technician performed a diagnostic 3 examination and informed him that his Class Vehicle’s compressor was damaged. 4 74. Plaintiff Schwartz paid $1,011.01 out of pocket for the diagnostic and 5 to replace the compressor, but does not, and cannot, know whether the repairs cured 6 the Defect in his Class Vehicle. 7 75. On or around February 2, 2021 Plaintiff Schwartz was contacted by 8 Defendant Honda after submitting a TSB claim. Defendant Honda denied the claim 9 stating that the condenser warranty extension applied only to condensers and that 10 compressor problems were not covered. 11 76. Neither Defendants nor their agents, dealers, or other representatives 12 informed Plaintiff Schwartz of the Defect’s existence at any time either prior to or 13 following his purchase, whether at the point of sale or otherwise. 14 77. Plaintiff Schwartz has suffered an ascertainable loss as a result of 15 Defendants’ omissions and/or misrepresentations associated with the Defect, 16 including but not limited to the out of pocket cost he incurred to diagnose and repair 17 the Defect, and the diminished value of his Class Vehicle. Had Defendants disclosed 18 the Defect to Plaintiff Schwartz, he would not have bought his Class Vehicle or 19 would have paid less for it. 20 Plaintiff Frank Costobile 21 78. Plaintiff Frank Costobile (“Plaintiff Costobile”) is a citizen of the State 22 of Pennsylvania and currently resides in Swarthmore, Pennsylvania. In or around 23 March 2016, Plaintiff Costobile purchased a new 2016 Honda Civic from Piazza 24 Honda, an authorized Honda dealer in Springfield, Pennsylvania, for personal, 25 family, and/or household use. 26 79. Prior to purchasing his Class Vehicle, Plaintiff Costobile test drove the 27 vehicle, viewed advertisements for the vehicle and the vehicle’s window sticker, and 28 spoke with Honda sales representatives concerning the vehicle’s features, none of

Class Action Complaint - 14 - Case 2:21-cv-04030-VAP-JC Document 1 Filed 05/13/21 Page 15 of 115 Page ID #:15

1 which disclosed the Defect to Plaintiff. Plaintiff Costobile relied on Honda’s 2 misrepresentations and omissions in deciding to purchase his vehicle. 3 80. On or around April 2, 2020, with approximately 25,200 miles on the 4 odometer, the AC system in Plaintiff Costobile’s Class Vehicle failed without 5 warning. 6 81. Plaintiff Costobile brought his Class Vehicle to Piazza Honda in 7 Springfield, Pennsylvania where an authorized Honda technician informed him that 8 the compressor had failed. 9 82. Plaintiff Costobile paid $716.74 out of pocket to Piazza Honda to repair 10 the compressor in his Class Vehicle. Plaintiff Costobile submitted a reimbursement 11 request under TSB. 12 83. On or around January 11, 2021, Plaintiff Costobile was contacted by 13 Defendant Honda and was informed that Honda would not cover the compressor 14 repair because the warranty extension only covered condensers. 15 84. Due to the Defect’s pervasive nature and the fact that AC System 16 repairs appear to restore functionality only temporarily, Plaintiff Costobile cannot 17 be confident that the repairs performed will permanently restore functionality to his 18 AC System. 19 85. Neither Defendants nor their agents, dealers, or other representatives 20 informed Plaintiff Costobile of the Defect’s existence at any time either prior to or 21 following his purchase, whether at the point of sale or otherwise. 22 86. Plaintiff Costobile has suffered an ascertainable loss as a result of 23 Honda's omissions and/or misrepresentations concerning the Defect, including but 24 not limited to the out-of-pocket cost he incurred to diagnose the Defect, and the 25 diminished value of his Class Vehicle. Had Defendants disclosed the Defect to 26 Plaintiff Costobile, he would not have bought his Class Vehicle or would have paid 27 less for it. 28

Class Action Complaint - 15 - Case 2:21-cv-04030-VAP-JC Document 1 Filed 05/13/21 Page 16 of 115 Page ID #:16

1 Plaintiff Rachel Fairchild 2 87. Plaintiff Rachel Fairchild ("Plaintiff Fairchild") is a citizen of the State 3 of Florida, and currently resides in Tampa, Florida. On February 6, 2016, Plaintiff 4 Fairchild purchased a new 2016 Honda Civic from Hall Automotive, an authorized 5 Honda dealer in Virginia Beach, Virginia, for personal, family, and/or household 6 use.5 7 88. Prior to purchasing her Class Vehicle, Plaintiff Fairchild test drove the 8 vehicle, viewed advertisements for the vehicle and the vehicle's window sticker, and 9 spoke with Honda sales representatives concerning the vehicle's features. Neither 10 Honda nor its agents, dealers, or other representatives informed Plaintiff Fairchild 11 of the Defect's existence at any time either prior to or following her purchase, 12 whether at the point of sale or otherwise. Plaintiff Fairchild relied on Honda’s 13 misrepresentations and omissions in deciding to purchase her vehicle. 14 89. In addition to touting many of the Class Vehicle's safety features, the 15 vehicle’s window sticker also stated that the vehicle was equipped with a functioning 16 AC System, and was covered by Honda's New Vehicle Limited Warranty. The AC 17 System and New Vehicle Limited Warranty were central to Plaintiff Fairchild’s 18 purchasing decision. Plaintiff Fairchild relied on Honda’s representations regarding 19 the AC System’s functionality and the existence of the New Vehicle Limited 20 Warranty in deciding to purchase her vehicle. 21 90. In or around June 2017, with approximately 13,300 miles on the 22 odometer, the AC System in Plaintiff Fairchild's Class Vehicle failed without 23 warning. 24 91. Plaintiff Fairchild subsequently brought her Class Vehicle to Hall 25 Automotive, where an authorized Honda technician informed her the AC System 26 was devoid of refrigerant due to a leak at the condenser’s o-ring. The technician also 27

28 5 See also discussion of prior Elkins litigation in Section IV(F)(10) below.

Class Action Complaint - 16 - Case 2:21-cv-04030-VAP-JC Document 1 Filed 05/13/21 Page 17 of 115 Page ID #:17

1 noted that he did not observe leaks elsewhere in the AC System. Honda agreed to 2 cover these repairs pursuant to its New Vehicle Limited Warranty. 3 92. Unfortunately, in approximately May 2019, with about 28,300 miles on 4 the odometer, Plaintiff Fairchild’s AC System failed yet again. 5 93. On June 5, 2019, Plaintiff Fairchild tendered her Class Vehicle to 6 Tampa Honda, an authorized Honda dealer in Tampa, Florida, where a technician 7 informed her that she would need to pay a diagnostic fee in order for Tampa Honda 8 to inspect and diagnose her vehicle. Plaintiff Fairchild agreed to pay a diagnostic fee 9 of $144.26, inclusive of taxes. 10 94. When she returned to reclaim her Class Vehicle later that same day, 11 Tampa Honda informed her AC System’s condenser was leaking and required 12 replacement, and the System would need to be evacuated and recharged. Tampa 13 Honda also informed her that because her Class Vehicle was by then out-of-warranty 14 and the condenser itself had cracked, rather than the o-ring Hall Automotive 15 previously repaired, the repairs needed to restore functionality to her AC System 16 would cost $1019.76, exclusive of taxes, and that, because OEM replacement 17 condensers were on nationwide backorder, it would not be able to repair her vehicle 18 for some time. 19 95. Due to her Class Vehicle’s low mileage and age, and the fact that Honda 20 should have permanently repaired her vehicle when it performed in-warranty repairs 21 in 2017, Plaintiff Fairchild requested that Honda cover the required repairs pursuant 22 to its New Vehicle Limited Warranty. Tampa Honda declined on grounds that the 23 repairs her vehicle now required differed from the repairs Hall Automotive effected 24 in June 2017, notwithstanding that in both instances the AC System’s leaks 25 emanated from the condenser. 26 96. Due to the cost of the repairs needed to restore functionality to her Class 27 Vehicle’s AC System, her firm belief that Honda should have agreed to cover those 28 repairs pursuant to its New Vehicle Limited Warranty, and the fact that she would

Class Action Complaint - 17 - Case 2:21-cv-04030-VAP-JC Document 1 Filed 05/13/21 Page 18 of 115 Page ID #:18

1 have to wait weeks for repairs just as the hottest summer months were approaching, 2 Plaintiff Fairchild declined to authorize the repairs at that time. 3 97. On August 8, 2019, Plaintiff Fairchild emailed Honda to express her 4 dissatisfaction with her Class Vehicle due to the AC System’s repeated failures and 5 the repairs necessitated thereby, as well as Honda’s inability to make OEM 6 condensers available for repairs. 7 98. On August 9, 2019, Honda responded by email. Honda informed 8 Plaintiff Fairchild that it had implemented a warranty extension program for which 9 her Class Vehicle might be eligible, but that she would need to schedule yet another 10 diagnostic exam at a local Honda dealership. Honda further advised her that the 11 warranty extension would cover only corrosion-related condenser failures, and that 12 if her condenser did not display signs of corrosion her local dealer would charge her 13 for both the diagnostic exam and subsequent repairs. 14 99. Plaintiff Fairchild has yet to receive from Honda a letter notifying her 15 of the warranty extension program’s parameters or existence. 16 100. Accordingly, sometime in January 2020, Plaintiff Fairchild called 17 Tampa Honda to ask when it would repair her Class Vehicle. Tampa Honda 18 informed her that a condenser was available and asked her to bring her Class Vehicle 19 in for repairs, which she did on January 29, 2020. 20 101. Because the Program covered Plaintiff Fairchild’s condenser failure, 21 Tampa Honda replaced it free of charge. However, when performing that repair, a 22 technician determined her Class Vehicle’s compressor also was leaking, and 23 informed Plaintiff Fairchild that if she did not replace the compressor as well, her 24 AC System would fail again “soon.” Tampa Honda further explained that the 25 Program only covered repair and/or replacement of certain “defective” condensers, 26 and therefore she would need to pay approximately $1,400 out-of-pocket to replace 27 her compressor. 28

Class Action Complaint - 18 - Case 2:21-cv-04030-VAP-JC Document 1 Filed 05/13/21 Page 19 of 115 Page ID #:19

1 102. Because Plaintiff Fairchild did not want to experience another Summer 2 without a functioning AC System, she agreed to the repairs. Plaintiff Fairchild paid 3 Tampa Honda $1,504.65, inclusive of taxes, to replace her AC System’s compressor 4 and recharge the system with refrigerant. Plaintiff Fairchild also asked to keep the 5 failed AC System components, but a Tampa Honda technician informed her that 6 Honda would keep the parts in order to refurbish them. 7 103. Due to the Defect’s pervasive nature and the fact that AC System 8 repairs appear to restore functionality only temporarily, Plaintiff Fairchild cannot be 9 confident that the repairs Tampa Honda has performed will permanently restore 10 functionality to her AC System. 11 104. Plaintiff Fairchild has suffered an ascertainable loss as a result of 12 Honda's omissions and/or misrepresentations concerning the Defect, including but 13 not limited to the out-of-pocket cost she incurred to diagnose the Defect, and the 14 diminished value of her Class Vehicle. Had Honda disclosed the Defect to Plaintiff 15 Fairchild, she would not have bought her Class Vehicle or would have paid less for 16 it. 17 Plaintiff James Tillery 18 105. Plaintiff James Tillery (“Plaintiff Tillery”) is a citizen of the State of 19 Virginia, and currently resides in Virginia Beach, Virginia. On or about April 5, 20 2016, Plaintiff Tillery purchased a new 2016 Honda Civic from Priority Honda, an 21 authorized Honda dealer in Chesapeake, Virginia, for personal, family, and/or 22 household use. 23 106. Prior to purchasing his Class Vehicle, Plaintiff Tillery test drove the 24 vehicle, viewed advertisements for the vehicle and the vehicle’s window sticker, and 25 spoke with Honda sales representatives concerning the vehicle’s features, none of 26 which disclosed the Defect to Plaintiff. Plaintiff Tillery relied on Honda’s 27 misrepresentations and omissions in deciding to purchase his vehicle. 28

Class Action Complaint - 19 - Case 2:21-cv-04030-VAP-JC Document 1 Filed 05/13/21 Page 20 of 115 Page ID #:20

1 107. With approximately 75,000 miles on the odometer, the AC system on 2 Plaintiff Tillery’s Class Vehicle failed without warning. 3 108. Plaintiff Tillery brought his Class Vehicle to Priority Honda in 4 Chesapeake, Virginia where an authorized Honda technician refilled the refrigerant. 5 Plaintiff Tillery paid approximately $250.00 out of pocket for this service. 6 109. Approximately ten months later, the AC system in Plaintiff Tillery’s 7 Class Vehicle failed a second time. Plaintiff Tillery then brought his Class Vehicle 8 first to Priority Acura in Chesapeake, Virginia and then later to Priority Honda, 9 which performed a diagnostic examination and informed him that his Class 10 Vehicle’s compressor had failed. 11 110. Plaintiff Tillery paid $131.99 out of pocket for the diagnostic to be 12 performed. Priority Honda gave a quote of approximately $1,700.00 to repair the 13 compressor and would not repair it under the warranty. 14 111. Plaintiff Tillery has not had the compressor in his Class Vehicle 15 repaired. 16 112. Due to the Defect’s pervasive nature and the fact that AC System 17 repairs appear to restore functionality only temporarily, Plaintiff Tillery cannot be 18 confident that the repairs Honda has yet to perform will permanently restore 19 functionality to his AC System. 20 113. Neither Honda nor its agents, dealers, or other representatives informed 21 Plaintiff Tillery of the Defect’s existence at any time either prior to or following his 22 purchase, whether at the point of sale or otherwise. 23 114. Plaintiff Tillery has suffered an ascertainable loss as a result of Honda's 24 omissions and/or misrepresentations concerning the Defect, including but not 25 limited to the out-of-pocket cost he incurred to diagnose the Defect, and the 26 diminished value of his Class Vehicle. Had Honda disclosed the Defect to Plaintiff 27 Tillery, he would not have bought his Class Vehicle or would have paid less for it. 28

Class Action Complaint - 20 - Case 2:21-cv-04030-VAP-JC Document 1 Filed 05/13/21 Page 21 of 115 Page ID #:21

1 Plaintiff Lingyan Yin 2 115. Plaintiff Lingyan Yin (“Plaintiff Yin”) is a citizen of the State of 3 Washington, and currently resides in Kirkland, Washington. On or around May 28, 4 2016, Plaintiff Yin purchased a new 2016 Honda Civic from Honda of Kirkland an 5 authorized Honda dealer in Kirkland, Washington for personal, family, and/or 6 household use. 7 116. Prior to purchasing her Class Vehicle, Plaintiff Yin test drove the 8 vehicle, viewed advertisements for the vehicle and the vehicle’s window sticker, and 9 spoke with Honda sales representatives concerning the vehicle’s features, none of 10 which disclosed the Defect to Plaintiff. Plaintiff Yin relied on Honda’s 11 misrepresentations and omissions in deciding to purchase her vehicle. 12 117. In or around May 2019, with approximately 4,000 miles on the 13 odometer, the AC system in Plaintiff Yin’s Class Vehicle failed without warning. 14 118. Plaintiff Yin brought her Class Vehicle to Honda of Kirkland in 15 Kirkland, Washington where an authorized Honda technician performed a diagnostic 16 examination and informed her that her Class Vehicle’s condenser failed and replaced 17 the condenser under warranty. 18 119. On or around March 20, 2020, the AC system in Plaintiff Yin’s Class 19 Vehicle failed a second time. Plaintiff Yin contacted Defendant Honda and was told 20 that her Class Vehicle’s compressor had failed, but the vehicle was now out of 21 warranty. Defendant Honda gave Plaintiff Yin approximately $200.00 in credit 22 which did not cover the entire cost of repair. 23 120. Plaintiff Yin paid approximately $1,600.00 out of pocket to replace her 24 Class Vehicle’s compressor. 25 121. Neither Honda nor its agents, dealers, or other representatives informed 26 Plaintiff Yin of the Defect’s existence at any time either prior to or following her 27 purchase, whether at the point of sale or otherwise. 28

Class Action Complaint - 21 - Case 2:21-cv-04030-VAP-JC Document 1 Filed 05/13/21 Page 22 of 115 Page ID #:22

1 122. Plaintiff Yin has suffered an ascertainable loss as a result of Honda’s 2 omissions and/or misrepresentations associated with the Defect, including but not 3 limited to the out of pocket cost she incurred to diagnose and repair the Defect, and 4 the diminished value of her Class Vehicle. Had Honda disclosed the Defect to 5 Plaintiff Yin, she would not have bought her Class Vehicle or would have paid less 6 for it. B. The AC Systems in Class Vehicles 7 123. Automotive AC Systems once were considered a luxury, but for 8 decades have come standard in virtually every vehicle sold in the United States. 9 Consumers now not only expect their vehicles to come equipped with a dependable 10 AC System, they expect that system to work through their vehicle’s service life. 11 124. However, since the date of their production and before they are placed 12 into the stream of commerce, the Class Vehicles’ AC Systems suffer from a 13 common, latent defect that eventually manifests and forces consumers to choose 14 between spending hundreds (if not thousands) of dollars in repairs or foregoing a 15 feature without which they cannot safely and comfortably operate their vehicle. 16 125. Specifically, and as described further herein, due to a defect in design, 17 and/or the materials from and the manner in which Honda manufactures them and 18 their constituent components, Class Vehicle AC Systems cannot perform as 19 warranted and expected in ordinary and foreseeable driving conditions (the “AC 20 System Defect” or “Defect”). 21 126. The AC System in the Class Vehicles is a pressurized, self-contained 22 system composed of three main components: the compressor, the condenser, and the 23 evaporator, each of which is connected to the other components by hoses and lines. 24 A generalized diagram of the type of air conditioning system found in the Class 25 Vehicles is below in Figure 1, with component parts labeled and refrigerant flow 26 path and temperature indicated by colored arrows. 27 28

Class Action Complaint - 22 - Case 2:21-cv-04030-VAP-JC Document 1 Filed 05/13/21 Page 23 of 115 Page ID #:23

1

2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 Figure 1 14 15 16 127. A chemical refrigerant flows through the AC System, alternating 17 between a liquid and a gas depending on the pressure it is subjected to in the various 18 components it flows through during its continuous cycle through the System. 19 128. Class Vehicle AC Systems operate as follows. The compressor is 20 responsible for compressing the refrigerant gas. Compression causes the refrigerant 21 to get very hot. The hot, compressed refrigerant gas is then sent through a discharge 22 line to the condenser. 23 129. Because the hose connecting the compressor and condenser—the 24 “refrigerant hose”—is a high-pressure side hose, it experiences approximately 350 25 psi of pressure during system operation, in addition to vibration and jostling during 26 normal vehicle operation. If the hose cracks, refrigerant may leak, impairing the 27 entire AC System’s functionality. 28

Class Action Complaint - 23 - Case 2:21-cv-04030-VAP-JC Document 1 Filed 05/13/21 Page 24 of 115 Page ID #:24

1 130. If the compressor successfully forces refrigerant into the refrigerant 2 hose, the pressurized refrigerant ultimately reaches the condenser. The condenser is 3 a series of coils over which outside air passes to cool the compressed refrigerant gas 4 and condense it into a cold liquid. The cold liquid refrigerant then passes through 5 the receiver-drier, a canister containing desiccant to absorb moisture, and then 6 through an expansion valve to change it from a high-pressure liquid to a low-pressure 7 liquid mist before entering the evaporator. 8 131. The evaporator is an array of tubes that the refrigerant liquid mist flows 9 through, chilling the tubes. As the low-pressure liquid refrigerant mist flows through 10 the evaporator, a blower motor pushes air across the cold tubes of the evaporator to 11 deliver cooled air into the passenger compartment of the automobile. 12 132. Each of the foregoing components is essential to the proper operation 13 of the AC System. Should one component fail, the whole System ceases to operate. 14 However, neither the AC System nor its constituent components are considered wear 15 parts. On information and belief, Honda, like consumers, expects AC Systems to 16 perform throughout Class Vehicles’ projected service life, which is well in excess of 17 100,000 miles. 18 133. Moreover, automotive AC systems, including the AC Systems in Class 19 Vehicles, are “closed loop” systems, i.e., the system does not consume the gaseous 20 refrigerant it uses to cool vehicle cabins and should not allow refrigerant to escape 21 the system. A vehicle’s AC system will cease to produce cold air only if a system 22 component ceases to function properly, or if the system develops a leak that allows 23 the refrigerant to escape. 24 25 26 27 28

Class Action Complaint - 24 - Case 2:21-cv-04030-VAP-JC Document 1 Filed 05/13/21 Page 25 of 115 Page ID #:25

1 C. The Defect 2 134. The “Honda Civic,” the vehicle model at the heart of this litigation, is 3 one of Honda’s most popular U.S. offerings. Honda has sold approximately 1.4 4 million Class Vehicles in the United States.6 5 135. In 2015, Honda began to market, sell and warrant Class Vehicles, the 6 Tenth Generation of its popular Civic model. On information and belief, the AC 7 Systems in all Class Vehicles—MY 2016-19 Civics—are identical in terms of both 8 their design and constituent components. 9 136. Reasonable consumers expect that AC Systems in Class Vehicles, as in 10 most any vehicle, are designed and manufactured to function for periods and 11 mileages substantially in excess of those specified in Honda’s warranties. Honda’s 12 customers, including Plaintiffs and Class Members, justifiably expect to enjoy the 13 use of an automobile air conditioning system throughout the vehicle’s service life. 14 137. Class Vehicle AC Systems, however, are defective and expose vehicle 15 owners and occupants to significant and unreasonable safety risks. 16 138. The AC System is not sufficiently strong and durable and is prone to 17 fail during ordinary use and operation and well in advance of its expected useful life. 18 This insufficiency leads to System parts cracking, which allows refrigerant to leak 19 out of the System and causes the System to lose pressure, which inhibits the AC 20 System’s ability to produce cool air as advertised and expected. 21 139. Honda knew or should have known that designing and manufacturing 22 insufficiently strong and durable AC System components could lead to cracking, 23 refrigerant leaks, lost pressurization, and AC System failure under normal and 24 foreseeable use and conditions. 25 26 27

28 6 https://www.goodcarbadcar.net/2011/01/honda-civic-sales-figures/ (last visited May 12, 2021).

Class Action Complaint - 25 - Case 2:21-cv-04030-VAP-JC Document 1 Filed 05/13/21 Page 26 of 115 Page ID #:26

1 140. AC System failure occurs at relatively low mileages, often just outside 2 the warranty period, suddenly and without warning, and the Defect impacts nearly 3 every AC System component. 4 141. As one authorized Honda technician explained in a Civic owners’ 5 forum, in fifteen years of servicing Honda vehicles “this has been the worst a/c 6 related issue I’ve seen. This sort of thing usually always happens when we are forced 7 to do a refrigerant type change. Happened when we went from R12 to R134a, and 8 now it’s happening from R134a to R1234yf.”7 That same technician also noted that 9 the Defect seemed to impact all three major System components: the condenser, 10 compressor and evaporator.8 11 142. A frequent visitor to that same forum9 noted that other Honda Master 12 Technicians had echoed his conclusions: 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 143. A leak in either of the AC System’s three critical components, or the 24 various hoses and lines that connect them, not only will cause the System to

25 7 26 2016-2019 Evaporator failures/leaks | 2016+ Honda Civic Forum (10th Gen) - Type R Forum, Si Forum - CivicX.com (last visited April 21, 2021). 27 8 Id. 9 My A/C took a poop...*Dealership update* | Page 4 | 2016+ Honda Civic Forum (10th Gen) - 28 Type R Forum, Si Forum - CivicX.com (last visited April 21, 2021).

Class Action Complaint - 26 - Case 2:21-cv-04030-VAP-JC Document 1 Filed 05/13/21 Page 27 of 115 Page ID #:27

1 hemorrhage refrigerant, rendering the System inoperable, they also can cause other 2 System components to fail. For example, if Class Vehicles begin to hemorrhage 3 refrigerant due to a leak in the condenser, the compressor may seize when refrigerant 4 ceases to pass through it. 5 144. Because of the high number of failures, AC System replacement parts, 6 including condensers,10 compressors11 and evaporators12 are on national backorder 7 and the wait for replacement parts is long – often many months – during which time 8 Plaintiffs and Class Members must suffer without a functioning AC System in their 9 Vehicles. 10 145. Class Members also report that Honda’s repairs are only temporary. 11 Because the Defect is systemic, when Honda replaces individual failed AC System 12 components with equally defective parts, Class Vehicle AC Systems will often 13 manifest the Defect again following initial repairs. 14 146. For example, the consumer referenced below13 reports that in 15 approximately four years of ownership, her vehicle developed leaks in, and required 16 replacement of (in order), the compressor, condenser, and evaporator, only one of 17 which was replaced under warranty. 18 19 20 21 22 23 10 https://www.civicx.com/threads/air-conditioning-condenser-issue-is-real.24701/ (last visited 24 April 21, 2021). 11 See Exhibit A, Honda message to authorized dealers regarding “2016-2020 Honda Civic 25 Compressor Replacement” (“We’ve noticed an unprecedented demand for A/C compressors which 26 at times has created a backorder situation.”). 12 2016-2019 Evaporator failures/leaks | 2016+ Honda Civic Forum (10th Gen) - Type R Forum, 27 Si Forum - CivicX.com (posted Oct. 15, 2020) (last visited April 21, 2021). 13 2016-2019 Evaporator failures/leaks | 2016+ Honda Civic Forum (10th Gen) - Type R Forum, 28 Si Forum - CivicX.com (last visited April 21, 2021).

Class Action Complaint - 27 - Case 2:21-cv-04030-VAP-JC Document 1 Filed 05/13/21 Page 28 of 115 Page ID #:28

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 147. Other Class members similarly report14 replacing seemingly every 13 major AC System component only for the Defect to continue to manifest thereafter. 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 Simply put, there does not exist a single “fix” capable of remediating the systemic 26 AC System Defect. 27 14 2016 A/C Compressor Leak | Page 3 | 2016+ Honda Civic Forum (10th Gen) - Type R Forum, 28 Si Forum - CivicX.com (last visited April 21, 2021).

Class Action Complaint - 28 - Case 2:21-cv-04030-VAP-JC Document 1 Filed 05/13/21 Page 29 of 115 Page ID #:29

1 148. Further, because the Defect affects internal, mechanical components 2 and manifests suddenly, Plaintiffs and Class Members have no warning that the 3 Defect has manifested until it causes the entire AC System to fail completely. 4 149. Honda could have disclosed the Defect to customers in advertising or 5 at the point of sale or lease, but instead elected to conceal the Defect and force its 6 customers to bear the costs of remediating a Defect of which Honda has been aware 7 since prior to placing Class Vehicles into the stream of commerce. 8 D. The Defect Poses a Safety Risk to Vehicle Owners and Occupants 9 10 150. The AC System’s inability to quickly lower the inside temperature of 11 the vehicle creates a significant safety hazard. 12 151. First, when the vehicle’s windshield accumulates moisture, the Defect 13 prevents Plaintiffs and Class Members from defogging their windshields using the 14 AC System, decreasing visibility and increasing the risk of accident, as numerous 15 Class Members have noted.15 16 152. Defogging is of particular importance to owners of Class Vehicles, 17 because Class members report16 the vehicle’s windshields tend to fog both easily and 18 frequently. 19 20 21 22 23 24

25 15 26 See, e.g., https://www.carcomplaints.com/Honda/Civic/2016/AC_heater/AC_not_working_properly.shtml 27 (posted Mar. 12, 2018) (last visited April 21, 2021). 16 https://www.civicx.com/forum/threads/heater-defrost-and-fog.55661/ (last visited on April 21, 28 2021).

Class Action Complaint - 29 - Case 2:21-cv-04030-VAP-JC Document 1 Filed 05/13/21 Page 30 of 115 Page ID #:30

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11

12 153. The Defect also poses a safety risk to Vehicle occupants because a 13 Vehicle with a non-functioning AC System subjects occupants to unsafely high 14 temperatures, particularly the young and elderly. 15 154. Lastly, if Class Vehicles begin to hemorrhage refrigerant due to a leak 16 caused by the Defect, the compressor may seize when refrigerant ceases to pass 17 through it. Should the compressor seize during vehicle operation, the vehicle may 18 stall, significantly increasing the risk of an accident and exposing occupants to 19 unreasonable safety risks. 20 155. Numerous absent Class Members have informed NHTSA, and Honda 21 directly, that the AC System Defect poses a safety risk, as illustrated by the following 22 examples:17 23 “There was a failure of the AC condenser causing the need 24 to replace the whole unit, as well as the sensor. The

25 17 26 For these and other customer complaints quoted in this Complaint, quotes are left as written, except that those originally in all-caps have been changed to sentence case. Due to the sheer 27 number of typographical and grammatical errors, [sic] notation has not been used. Any emphasis has been added, unless otherwise noted. 28

Class Action Complaint - 30 - Case 2:21-cv-04030-VAP-JC Document 1 Filed 05/13/21 Page 31 of 115 Page ID #:31

corporate Honda representative even admitted on the 1 phone that they dealerships have reported similar issues 2 with the condensers on the civic models, including units 3 delivered from the factor that had already failed. A simple 4 search of credited automotive review sites show many examples for this model year, where the AC units have 5 failed. As the corporate office has failed to issues a 6 voluntary recall for this issue, I ask that you look into this 7 and protect the consumer. Thank you.” NHTSA ODI 11208305 (incident date May 17, 2019). 8

9 “Air conditioning system went out. Blows warm air and 10 makes hissing noises. It takes a very long time to defog the 11 windshield reducing visibility while driving and making it uncomfortable to drive. The vehicles was in motion when 12 the problem was first noticed. It takes over 10 minutes to 13 defog the vehicle.” NHTSA 11145156 (date of incident 14 October 18, 2018).

15 “Randomly heard a pop, and the AC stopped working. 16 Took car to a dealership that tried to tell me it was road 17 hazard damage. After leaving Honda I called back to inquire more information, Honda refused to show me the 18 issue but told me they charge me $200 for a diagnosis fee. 19 Something seemed wrong. Checked online and saw 20 thousands of complaints for the same issue. Called Honda 21 corporate and was told to take it for a second opinion elsewhere. They knew about the AC issues and said it 22 would be covered under warranty except my car is out of 23 warranty because of high mileage. Without the AC the 24 defogger doesn’t work. This is extremely unsafe in certain weather conditions. Not sure how to get Honda to recall 25 this but it seems they have a history of AC units not 26 working properly in cars. If someone dies on the roadway 27 because of a visibility issue, Honda will have a major lawsuit ahead of them. Help us Honda owners get the 28

Class Action Complaint - 31 - Case 2:21-cv-04030-VAP-JC Document 1 Filed 05/13/21 Page 32 of 115 Page ID #:32

recall we deserve so we can safely drive the cars we spend 1 so much money on. This is unsafe and not okay!” NHTSA 2 ODI 11195910 (incident date March 12, 2018). 3 4 “The AC compressor and condenser are both leaking. One dealership tried to tell me they were leaking because a rock 5 hit it and caused the damage, and it costs $600 to fix. But 6 upon proper diagnosis from another dealership, they did 7 tell me both the compressor and condenser are leaking, and it was not caused by road hazard damage… My car is 8 out of warranty, so the dealership had to file a claim 9 through good will. They said they were willing to pay 10 50/50, which leaves me to pay $842 before taxes to get this 11 issue fixed. There needs to be a better solution. This is unsafe that all of these cars having leaking condensers and 12 compressors and it is a scam to have the customer pay 13 anything to fix an issue like this…” NHTSA ODI 14 11114617 (incident date July 27, 2018). 15 E. Honda’s Warranty and Repair Practices 16 17 156. Honda issues with every new Class Vehicle a bumper-to-bumper “New 18 Vehicle Limited Warranty” (NVLW) through which it agrees to cure at no charge 19 defects in materials or workmanship that exist within the first three years or 36,000 20 miles of purchase. An exemplar of the warranty booklet that accompanies every 21 Class Vehicle Honda sold is appended hereto as Exhibit B. 22 157. Honda also provided Class Members who purchased Certified Pre- 23 Owned Class Vehicles a 1-year/12,000 mile bumper-to-bumper Limited Warranty. 24 158. Honda provides these warranties to buyers and lessees after the 25 purchase/lease of the Class Vehicle is completed, therefore buyers and lessees have 26 no pre-sale/lease knowledge or ability to bargain as to the terms of the warranties. 27 159. Honda also provides an express written warranty with all Honda 28 replacement parts. The AC System and its constituent components are covered by

Class Action Complaint - 32 - Case 2:21-cv-04030-VAP-JC Document 1 Filed 05/13/21 Page 33 of 115 Page ID #:33

1 Honda's replacement part warranty, which promises that Honda will repair or replace 2 any covered part that was originally installed by a Honda dealership at the 3 consumer's expense for one (1) year, and will cover the costs of both the part and 4 any labor required to complete the repair. 5 160. Honda’s New Vehicle Limited Warranty should cover each and every 6 repair the Defect necessitates, since the NVLW covers all repairs required as a result 7 of defects in material or workmanship, including the Defect, for three years or 8 36,000 miles (whichever comes first). 9 161. In order to secure warranty coverage pursuant to any of the foregoing, 10 Plaintiffs and Class Members need only tender their Vehicle to a Honda authorized 11 dealership for repairs. See Exhibit B at 37. 12 162. The majority of Class Vehicles, however, manifest the Defect only after 13 any applicable base warranties have expired – often just outside the warranty period, 14 forcing Plaintiffs and Class Members to pay between $150 and $2000 out of pocket. 15 Yet dealerships complete these critical repairs using the same defective Honda parts, 16 often months after the Defect manifests because many System components are 17 backordered. 18 163. Even where Class Members tender their Vehicles for repair within the 19 warranty period, Honda often evades its warranty obligations. 20 164. First, because Honda effects repairs using equally defective 21 replacement parts, Honda’s in-warranty “fixes” remedy the Defect only temporarily. 22 Class Members thus report receiving warranty coverage when Defect first manifests, 23 only to later discover repairs were ineffective, that other components (or the very 24 same components) have failed, and that they will need to pay out-of-pocket for 25 subsequent repairs. 26 165. Second, Honda obstructs Class Members’ efforts to secure free 27 repairs—as Honda agrees to in its NVLW—by requiring them to pay a “diagnostic 28 fee” ranging from approximately $100-$415 prior to authorized dealers inspecting

Class Action Complaint - 33 - Case 2:21-cv-04030-VAP-JC Document 1 Filed 05/13/21 Page 34 of 115 Page ID #:34

1 Class Vehicles. Upon completing their inspection, authorized dealers often claim 2 AC Systems failed due to damage caused by “road debris” rather than the inherent 3 AC System Defect that plagues Class Vehicles, and thus refuse to effect repairs at 4 no cost. 5 166. Third, Class Members claim Honda impedes their ability to secure 6 warranty coverage by conducting a diagnostic inspection only to report that the 7 System is operational or the failure cannot be replicated, or simply refill the system 8 with refrigerant. Despite agreeing to undergo this diagnostic testing, these Class 9 Members eventually need to replace their AC System, often at their own expense 10 after any applicable warranties have expired:

11 For you guys having so many intermittent problems with 12 the a.c., and the dealer either keeps fixing it, or saying they 13 can’t duplicate the problem....Start video taping it with a 14 thermometer up by the vent and saving your service 15 records. 16 You all know my story most likely and I'm getting a brand 17 new car due to issues very similar to what some of you are 18 describing with the a.c. Not trying to hijack the thread, but 19 im proof dealers will tell you there’s nothing wrong when 20 there is.18 21 167. Because Honda’s “fixes” are anything but actual repairs to the AC 22 System, and Honda merely shifts onto Plaintiffs and Class Members the expense of 23 continuously replacing AC System assemblies that it has long known to be defective, 24 Honda’s warranty fails of its essential purpose, and Class Members’ recovery is not 25 26 27 18 https://www.civicx.com/threads/air-conditioning-condenser-issue-is-real.24701/page-6 (posted 28 August 17, 2018) (last visited April 21, 2021).

Class Action Complaint - 34 - Case 2:21-cv-04030-VAP-JC Document 1 Filed 05/13/21 Page 35 of 115 Page ID #:35

1 restricted to any written warranties promising to repair and/or correct defects, and 2 they may seek all remedies as allowed by law. 3 168. Moreover, in its capacity as a warrantor, Honda’s knowledge of the 4 Defect inherent in Class Vehicles renders its efforts to limit the duration of express 5 and implied warranties in a manner that would exclude coverage of the Defect 6 unconscionable, and any such effort to disclaim, or otherwise limit, liability for the 7 Class Vehicles is null and void. The limitations on the warranties are procedurally 8 unconscionable. There was unequal bargaining power between Honda and Plaintiffs 9 and the other Class Members, as, at the time of purchase and lease, Plaintiffs and the 10 other Class Members had no other options for purchasing warranty coverage other 11 than directly from Honda. 12 169. The limitations on the warranties also are substantively 13 unconscionable. Honda knew that Class Vehicles are defective and would continue 14 to pose safety risks after the warranties purportedly expired. Honda nevertheless 15 failed to disclose the Defect to Plaintiffs and the other Class Members while 16 continuing to market Class Vehicles as safe and reliable, thus Honda's enforcement 17 of the durational limitations purportedly applicable those warranties in harsh and 18 shocks the conscience. 19 F. Honda’s Longstanding Knowledge of the Defect 20 21 170. Honda learned of the AC System Defect at least as early as 2015, and 22 certainly well before Plaintiffs and Class Members purchased or leased their Class 23 Vehicles, through sources such as pre-release evaluation and testing; investigations 24 leading to dealer service bulletins; repair data; replacement part sales date; early 25 consumer complaints made directly to Honda, collected by the NHTSA ODI, and/or 26 posted on public online vehicle owner forums; testing done in response to those 27 complaints; aggregate data from Honda dealers; as well as through other internal 28 sources unavailable to Plaintiffs prior to discovery.

Class Action Complaint - 35 - Case 2:21-cv-04030-VAP-JC Document 1 Filed 05/13/21 Page 36 of 115 Page ID #:36

1 171. Moreover, Honda has faced a prior class action lawsuit for the same or 2 substantially similar defects found in its 2005 – 2007 Odyssey vehicles. This action, 3 styled Alin v. Honda Motor Company, LTD. Et al, No.: 2:08-cv-4825 (KSH)(PS), 4 was filed in the District of New Jersey on September 25, 2008.

5 1. Honda Gained Knowledge of the AC System Defect from Pre- 6 Release Design, Manufacture, Engineering, and Testing Data. 7 8 172. During the pre-release process of designing, manufacturing, 9 engineering, and testing the Class Vehicles, Honda necessarily would have gained 10 comprehensive and exclusive knowledge about the Class Vehicle’s AC System and 11 the expected conditions and uses the Systems would encounter in ordinary customer 12 service. 13 173. An adequate pre-release analysis of the design, engineering, and 14 production of AC systems equipped in Class Vehicles did reveal, or should have 15 revealed, to Honda that the AC systems are defective and prone to prematurely fail 16 well in advance of their expected useful life. 17 174. Honda publicly touts pre- and post-production quality assurance 18 processes it implemented to “aim for 120% product quality” because even “if 99% 19 of the products we make are perfect … the customers who become the owners of the 20 remaining 1% will surely consider their products 100% defective [,]” and “[i]t is 21 unacceptable that even one customer in a thousand – even one customer in ten 19 22 thousand – should receive a defective product.” 23 175. Consistent with its aim, Honda audits its suppliers “for both the 24 production preparation and mass-production stages of supplier operations. Experts 25 in the development and production of individual parts visit manufacturing facilities 26

27 19 https://global.honda/content/dam/site/global/about/cq_img/sustainability/report/pdf/2018/Honda- 28 SR-2018-en-065-078.pdf, at 66 (last visited April 13, 2021).

Class Action Complaint - 36 - Case 2:21-cv-04030-VAP-JC Document 1 Filed 05/13/21 Page 37 of 115 Page ID #:37

1 and conduct audits of supplier’s quality systems and their implementation. Honda 2 then works to improve part quality through activities that emphasize communication 3 with suppliers, for example, by sharing audit results and cooperating to identify 4 opportunities for quality improvement.”20 Honda’s extensive and continuous pre- 5 and post-release audits of its AC System supplier would have revealed the Air 6 Conditioning Systems it equips in Class Vehicles are uniformly defective and 7 virtually guaranteed to fail when they should last much longer than they do. 8 176. Honda also conducts significant durability testing on all of its vehicles, 9 including Class Vehicles, which mark the first Civic vehicles equipped with AC 10 Systems that utilize R-1234yf refrigerant. 11 177. Honda’s decision to use R-1234yf in Class Vehicles necessitated 12 significant changes to the AC System used in prior generations of Honda Civic 13 vehicles, particularly to the condenser, compressor, and evaporator. 14 178. Because of these changes, Honda subjected Class Vehicles’ SC 15 Systems to considerable pre-release testing, because Honda asserts tit “subjects new 16 and redesigned models to a rigorous regimen of long-distance durability testing 17 before beginning mass production to verify that there are no quality issues.”21 Honda 18 then “disassembles[s] vehicles used in the test drives into every single part and 19 verif[ies] that there are no quality issues through a process consisting of several 20 thousand checks. By accumulating data on the issues discovered through these test 21 drives and detailed inspections as well as associated countermeasures, [the 22 Company] is able to ensure a high level of quality and reliability.”22 23 179. As a result, Honda knew or should have known that the AC systems in 24 Class Vehicles suffer from defects in materials, workmanship and/or design, and are 25 predisposed to premature failure. 26

27 20 Id. at 59. 21 Id. 28 22 Id. (emphasis added).

Class Action Complaint - 37 - Case 2:21-cv-04030-VAP-JC Document 1 Filed 05/13/21 Page 38 of 115 Page ID #:38

1 2. Honda’s Knowledge of the Defect from Repair Data 2 3 180. Honda also knew or should have known about the AC System Defect 4 because of the large number of requests for AC System repairs and part replacements 5 made during and after the Class Vehicles’ warranty periods, and the fact that 6 refrigerant and replacement components are, or were, on nationwide backorder. 7 181. On information and belief, Honda, like all vehicle manufacturers, 8 communicates with its authorized service technicians in order to identify pervasive 9 vehicle defects, as well as root causes and potential repairs. Honda collects and 10 analyzes field date including, but not limited to, repair requests made at dealerships 11 and service centers, technical reports prepared by engineers that have reviewed 12 vehicles for which warranty coverage is requested, part sales reports, and warranty 13 claims data, in order to determine whether a defect exists and should be covered 14 under warranty or through a goodwill program. 15 182. Honda, in fact, tracks maintenance performed on Class Vehicles by 16 authorized Honda dealers. Data culled from these records concerning AC System 17 repairs, whether in- or out-of-warranty, undoubtedly alerted Honda to the scope of 18 this systemic Defect. 19 183. Honda also reviews and analyzes warranty data submitted by its 20 dealerships and authorized technicians to identify defect trends in its vehicles. Honda 21 indicates that when a repair is made under warranty (or warranty coverage is 22 requested), service centers must provide Honda with detailed documentation of the 23 problem and the fix that described the complaint, cause, and correction, and save the 24 defective component in case Honda later decides to audit the dealership or otherwise 25 verify the warranty repair. For their part, service centers are meticulous about 26 providing this detailed information about in-warranty repairs to Honda because 27 Honda will not reimburse service centers for the repair if the complaint, cause, and 28 correction are not sufficiently described. Due to Honda’s efforts to monitor defect

Class Action Complaint - 38 - Case 2:21-cv-04030-VAP-JC Document 1 Filed 05/13/21 Page 39 of 115 Page ID #:39

1 trends and the sheer number of repairs and warranty/goodwill requests made in 2 connection with the Defect, Honda knew or should have known of the Defect.

3 3. Honda’s Knowledge of the AC System Defect Gathered from the 4 Large Number of Replacement AC System Parts Ordered from 5 Honda 6 184. Upon information and belief, Honda also knew or should have known 7 about the AC System Defect because of the higher-than-expected number of 8 replacement AC System parts ordered from Honda, which should have alerted 9 Honda that an overwhelming number of Class Vehicles had manifested the Defect. 10 185. Upon information and belief, Honda service centers use Honda 11 replacement parts that they order directly from Honda. Furthermore, independent 12 vehicle repair shops that service Class Vehicles also order OEM parts directly from 13 Honda. Therefore, Honda does or should have detailed and accurate data regarding 14 the number and frequency of replacement part orders. 15 186. Additionally, because the three most critical AC System components— 16 the condenser, compressor, and evaporator—have all been backordered at various 17 times, Honda cannot credibly claim to have been unaware of the high demand for 18 replacement parts. 19 187. The ongoing high sales of replacement AC System parts was certainly 20 known to Honda and should have alerted Honda that its AC Systems are and were 21 defective. 22 23 4. Honda’s Knowledge of the AC System Defect Gained from Class Member Complaints Made Directly to Honda 24 188. Honda also knew or should have known about the AC System Defect 25 because numerous consumers complained directly to Honda and its authorized 26 dealers about the AC System Defect. The large number of complaints, and the 27 consistency of their descriptions of AC System failures in the Class Vehicles, should 28

Class Action Complaint - 39 - Case 2:21-cv-04030-VAP-JC Document 1 Filed 05/13/21 Page 40 of 115 Page ID #:40

1 have alerted or actually did alert Honda to this serious Defect affecting all Class 2 Vehicles. 3 189. The full universe of complaints made directly to Honda about the AC 4 System Defect is information presently in Honda’s exclusive custody and control 5 and is not available to Plaintiffs prior to discovery. On information and belief, 6 however, many Class Vehicle owners complained directly to Honda and Honda 7 dealerships about the AC System Defect in their vehicles. Some instances of these 8 direct-to-Honda complaints were reported in posts made on Honda Civic-related 9 online forums, several of which also demonstrate that the Defect often manifests in 10 Class Vehicles prior to sale and that Honda is well aware of the pervasiveness 11 thereof.

12 “I had mine at the dealership today. New compressor on 13 order but can’t me back in until May 11th to actually fix 14 it. Apparently this is a common problem right now.”23 15 (Posted on April 30, 2018).

16 “I had mine in 2 weeks ago. The tech refilled it and it was 17 working again at first but just in the past few days it's started blowing warm air again. There's also a hissing 18 sound coming from my vents while it's on. I have an 19 appointment at 8am tomorrow to have it looked at again so I'll see what happens. Kinda getting fed up of this car. 20 I've had so many annoying issues with it in the past year. 21 I've had my 2013 Civic for 5 years and it hasn't had a single problem.”24 (Posted on May 21, 2018). 22 th 23 “So I purchased a black ctr. The car arrived June 28 . I attempted to pick up the car two days later and when I was 24 on the way dealer called me and said they’re having 25 problems with ac blowing cold air. I wait around all day and then got news the whole ac has to be replaced … The 26

27 23 https://www.civicx.com/threads/16-civic-ac-not-working.23516/page-2 (last visited April 21, 2021). 28 24 Id.

Class Action Complaint - 40 - Case 2:21-cv-04030-VAP-JC Document 1 Filed 05/13/21 Page 41 of 115 Page ID #:41

car has 11 miles when I saw It in service dept going 1 through diagnostics.”25 (Posted July 6, 2017). 2 “Bought a brand new 2017 Honda Civic Hatchback EX 3 trim couple months back. So far I am loving it and already 4 put on 4000 miles on the car. I live in Southern California 5 and its getting pretty warm down here. However, I noticed that my AC is not as cold as it was when I first bought it. 6 I took it to the dealership and they told me that is working 7 just fine at 45 degrees but outside humidity/air temps play a role in the ‘feeling.’”26 (Posted May 24, 2017). 8 st 9 “I have 2016 civic LX. 1 they said needs Freon recharge, 2nd they said compressor need to be replace and still same 10 problem. 3rd now they said the a/c coil is not working need 11 to be replace. I called the honda America corp. 800-999- 1009 and I report this problem to them and they said 12 they will call the dealer and the service mng.”27 (Posted 13 August 5, 2016).

14 “The replacement line (just heard now that’s what they 15 replaced) came in last Friday, but they’ve put it in and there are still problems. Apparently they are working 16 with Honda to find the problem. My advisor mentioned 17 that it’s the first case like this at our dealership, but he was told Honda is aware of similar problems on “other 18 models” (I assume he means the Civic). Not they want 19 to replace the compressor, but again they have not ETA just yet. They will call me tomorrow once they find out. 20 At 20 days so far in the shop.”28 (Posted July 11, 2016). 21 “Just heard back from my dealer. They found the leak (I’ll 22 have to ask where when I go by there later), but they don’t 23 know when they can get replacement parts in (they 24

25 25 https://www.civicx.com/threads/air-condition-being-replaced-on-brand-new-ctr.13123/ (last 26 visited April 21, 2021). 26 https://honda-tech.com/forums/honda-civic-2016-current-165/2017-honda-civic-hatchback-ac- 27 question-3299430/ (last visited April 21, 2021). 27https://www.civicx.com/threads/ac-issues.4396/ (last visited April 21, 2021). 28 28 https://www.civicx.com/threads/a-c-help.4129/ (last visited April 21, 2021).

Class Action Complaint - 41 - Case 2:21-cv-04030-VAP-JC Document 1 Filed 05/13/21 Page 42 of 115 Page ID #:42

literally have no timeframe for this, which they said was 1 unusual).”29 (Posted June 23, 2016). 2 “I dropped off my car at the dealership this morning and 3 just heard back from them. They evacuated and recharged 4 the AC system because it was really low on refrigerant. 5 They thought that was really odd for a new car, so they did a dye test as well, but could not find a leak. Apparently the 6 problem is still there, though, so they'll need to keep it 30 7 another day so they can do more tests.” (Posted June 22, 2016). 8 9 “So I have theses AC issues on my car. First I got rid of all the leaks & was told that the Compressor is the main 10 problem. The AC is intermittent. It blows cold for few 11 mins & warm/hot for few. The compressor engages on and off. I went to get this checked & thought of replacing the 12 Clutch Assembly, but was told by a guy at a shop that the 13 whole compressor needs to be replaced coz it is not holding any pressure & even the ‘dryer.’ So now after 14 spending close to $300 already till date (AC Checks, 15 Leaks, etc etc), I though replacing the Clutch Assembly … will work. But now it looks more than that. As per what 16 the shop guy said, it will cost me around $850 to replace 31 17 the compressor with dryer & get the vents blow cold!” (Posted July 21, 2015). 18 19 190. As the above sampling of complaints shows, Class Members have been 20 vocal in complaining directly to Honda and its authorized dealers about the AC 21 System Defect, and the number and consistency of their complaints should have 22 alerted Honda to the scope and pervasiveness thereof. 23 24 25 26 29 Id. 27 30 Id. 31 https://www.civicforums.com/forums/36-mechanical-problems-vehicle-issues-fix- 28 forum/364684-ac-compressor-issues.html (last visited April 21, 2021).

Class Action Complaint - 42 - Case 2:21-cv-04030-VAP-JC Document 1 Filed 05/13/21 Page 43 of 115 Page ID #:43

5. Honda’s Knowledge of the AC System Defect from Class Member 1 Complaints Lodged with NHTSA 2 191. In addition to complaints made directly to Honda, many Class Vehicle 3 owners and lessees lodged complaints about the AC System Defect with NHTSA 4 ODI. 5 192. Federal law requires automakers like Honda to be in close contact with 6 NHTSA regarding potential auto defects, including imposing a legal requirement, 7 backed by criminal penalties for violation, of confidential disclosure of defects by 8 automakers to NHTSA, including field reports, customer complaints, and warranty 9 data.32 10 193. Automakers, including Honda, should (and do) monitor NHTSA 11 databases for consumer complaints regarding their automobiles as part of the 12 automakers’ ongoing obligation to identify potential defects in their vehicles, such 13 as failures of AC Systems to emit cold air as intended. 14 194. From its monitoring of the NHTSA databases, Honda knew or should 15 have known of the many complaints about AC System Defect logged by NHTSA 16 ODI, and the content, consistency, and large number of those complaints alerted, or 17 should have alerted, Honda to the AC System Defect. 18 195. A sampling of the publicly available complaints lodged with NHTSA 19 ODI, includes some of those quoted above, as well as the following, all of which 20 reflect the Defect’s systemic nature: 21 22 “My car ac won’t work and honda dealers want me to pay 23 for diagnosis when they now there is an existing issue with the A/C condenser, compressor and evaporator” NHTSA 24 ODI 11407728 (incident date April 12, 2021). 25 “Purchased 2017 Honda Civic new from dealership with 26 standard new car warranty. At 41,000 miles air 27 conditioning stopped working. Brought vehicle to

28 32 See TREAD Act, Pub. L. No. 106-414, 114 Stat. 1800 (2000).

Class Action Complaint - 43 - Case 2:21-cv-04030-VAP-JC Document 1 Filed 05/13/21 Page 44 of 115 Page ID #:44

dealership and was told new compressor was needed and 1 repair would cost $986 + tax. Brought vehicle because 2 reputation for reliability. Something like this has never happened before and dealership even admitted that there 3 has been sever problem with air conditioning compressors 4 for this particular year…” NHTSA ODI 11228283 5 (incident date June 27, 2019)

6 “Air conditioning system does not work. Dealer wants 7 $2,382.15 to replace A/C compressor w/ clutch and coil ($1500.26), condenser ($599.04), evacuate and recharge 8 complete ($159.95) … this year same problem, no cold air 9 and now being told entire system is defective. I can not properly clear my front windshield because does not 10 properly because I don’t have A/C.” NHTSA ODI 11 11208084 (incident May 16, 2019).

12 “A/C evaporator coil had bad weld. $1600 repair after 13 evaporator coil, Evac, and refill of Freon.” NHTSA 11210135 (date of incident May 13, 2019). 14 15 “There was a failure of the AC condenser causing the need to replace the whole unit, as well as the sensor. The 16 corporate Honda representative even admitted on the 17 phone that their dealerships have reported similar issues with the condensers on the civic models, 18 including units delivered from the factor that had 19 already failed. A simple search of credited automotive review sites shown many examples from this model year, 20 where the AC units have failed. As the corporate office has 21 failed to issues a voluntary recall for this issue, I ask that you look into this and protect the consumer. Thank you.” 22 NHTSA 11208305 (date of incident May 17, 2019). 23 “In the summer of 2018, with the air conditioning system 24 on, it was blowing warm air on the driver side while the 25 passenger side discharging cold air. Took the car to the dealer for inspection. The service department informed us 26 there was a leak. A dye was added to the recharged 27 refrigerant. Early this month, April, the AC wasn’t provided any cooling. Took the car to the dealer and was 28

Class Action Complaint - 44 - Case 2:21-cv-04030-VAP-JC Document 1 Filed 05/13/21 Page 45 of 115 Page ID #:45

informed that the AC compressor along with refrigerant 1 piping was leaking and need to be replaced.” NHTSA 2 11194751 (date of incident March 26, 2019).

3 “My vehicle has been having issue with the A/C for a 4 couple of week. Two days ago my A/C stop working so I 5 took it to my local Honda dealer to take a look at it. They told me that the A/C compressor has failed and it’s not 6 covered under warranty fir to my car having 41K miles. I 7 tried to explain that the car is only a year old. They (dealership) did not want to cover it under warranty due to 8 the miles. The repair cost was $1,500. I have read online 9 that several buyer have had this problem. The dealer also mention that they have been receiving a lot of cars with 10 the same issue…” NHTSA ODI 11153170 (date of 11 incident November 19, 2018).

12 “AC on the driver side warm air passenger side cold air 13 then nothing. This started while driving on the highway august 3rd 2018 and stopped working august 6th 2018.” 14 NHTSA ODI 11118112 (incident date August 3, 2018). 15 “The AC compressor and condenser are both leaking … 16 upon proper diagnosis from another dealership, they did 17 tell me both the compressor and condenser are leaking and it was not caused by road hazard damage…” NHTSA ODI 18 11114617 (incident date July 27, 2018). 19 “AC line was never connected from the factory with built. 20 Caused excessive water and passenger side floor board 21 and caused mold on the carpet.” NHTSA 11109873 (date of incident July 6, 2018). 22 23 “Air conditioning system does not work. Dealer wants $2,382.15 to replace A/C compressor with clutch and coil 24 ($1500.26), condenser ($599.04), evacuate and recharge 25 complete ($159.95) filters and air cleaners ($122.90), air ventilation system cleaning ($89.95). 2016 Honda Civic 26 ex 70,491 miles. Last year I brought the car to dealer and 27 they vacuumed and refilled the system ($159.95). This year same problem, no cold air and now being told entire 28

Class Action Complaint - 45 - Case 2:21-cv-04030-VAP-JC Document 1 Filed 05/13/21 Page 46 of 115 Page ID #:46

system is defective. I can not properly clear my front 1 windshield because does not work properly because I 2 don’t have A/C.” NHTSA ODI 11208084 (incident date May 16, 2018). 3

4 “Car is only one yr old, not even 33,000 miles air 5 conditioner blowing hot air, many of my friends have same problem. Honda won’t honor warranty. Wants to 6 charge over $500.00 to start.” NHTSA ODI 11025487 7 (incident date September 25, 2017).

8 “Just had a problem with the A/C. Car would blow hot air 9 after 15 mins of driving. Had to completely turn off air and leave it off for ½ hour or more to get A/C to work.” 10 NHTSA ODI 10903307 (incident date July 14, 2016). 11 196. As the above sampling of complaints makes clear, consumers have been 12 vocal in complaining to NHTSA ODI about the AC System Defect and Honda was, 13 or should have been, aware of and monitoring those complaints, and thus should 14 have known about the AC System Defect. 15

16 6. Honda’s Knowledge of the AC System Defect from Class Member 17 Complaints on Third-Party Websites 18 197. In addition to complaints made directly to Honda and collected by 19 NHTSA ODI, many Class Vehicle owners and lessees posted complaints about the 20 AC System Defect—and its effect on each of the condenser, compressor, and 21 evaporator33—on public online vehicle owner forums. 22 198. Examples of these types of postings are below: 23 24 “Glitches in the apple car play. Ac compressor. Broke after 3 years. Lots of recalls. Battery dies quick due to all 25 the technology in car. Glitches causing the car to die. Too 26 27 33 https://www.civicx.com/forum/threads/2016-a-c-compressor-leak.24603/page-5 (posted June 28 29, 2020) (last visited April 21, 2021).

Class Action Complaint - 46 - Case 2:21-cv-04030-VAP-JC Document 1 Filed 05/13/21 Page 47 of 115 Page ID #:47

much pressure on door will cause car to say door open and 1 lights will keep flashing on.”34 (Posted on April 3, 2021). 2 “I love the look and feel of my car, as well as all of the 3 features in it. I enjoy driving it and I’m glad I purchased 4 it. I am not, however, happy that my a/c has leaked twice 5 since April, and now I need a new compressor. I am unsure how happy I am with Honda’s customer service at this 6 point.”35 (Posted on April 3, 2021). 7 “The car is comfortable and drives nice, however 2 months 8 after I bought it, the radio computer started to act up, after 9 that the a/c compressor and then the struts. I have had the computer problem already twice so I really do not 10 recommend the vehicle, at least not the 2016.”36 (Posted 11 on April 3, 2021).

12 “However, I cannot give it 5 stars because the air 13 conditioner blew out after only 40000 miles. This was no longer covered under warranty and Honda want to charge 14 me $2k to fix this. In my opinion this is still a new car. The 15 air conditioning issue is a known issue and Honda refuses to look into it and compensate customers.”37 (Posted on 16 April 2, 2021). 17 “My only complaint is that I noticed the air conditioning 18 didn't work once it got warm. It was under warranty, so 19 they fixed it for free, but after a month or so it stopped working again.”38 (Posted on April 2, 2021). 20 21 “It is a reliable ride, but the condenser and compressor were having issues at the 30000 mile mark, which is a 22 known issue with civics.”39 (Posted on April 2, 2021). 23

24 34 https://www.vehiclehistory.com/report/honda/civic/2016/consumer- 25 reviews?keyword=problems (Last visited April 21, 2021). 35 26 Id. 36 Id. 27 37 Id. 38 Id. 28 39 Id.

Class Action Complaint - 47 - Case 2:21-cv-04030-VAP-JC Document 1 Filed 05/13/21 Page 48 of 115 Page ID #:48

“I would say the probability is 100%. Mine failed about a 1 month ago. Was hoping it was the condenser that would 2 be covered but I had to pay 445 for a diagnostic fee since it’s the evaporator that failed. Another common issue but 3 Honda won’t acknowledge that it’s their shitty system. 4 Honestly will never buy a Honda again. I had issues with 5 my 18 Civic Si already. When I got the car the shifting was just awful. It feels like I’m grinding gears every 1-2 gear 6 change. I thought it’d get better in time. Obviously should 7 have lemoned the car. Now I know my lesson. Drive a 2018 car but cannot get A/C because it will cost 2000 8 dollars and it won’t even be good in 3 years most likely. 9 They’re not acknowledging the problem with their AC system so why would they change any part of that system? 10 The evaporator will be replaced with another evaporator 40 11 that will go out in 3 years of normal use.” (Posted on December 2, 2020) 12 13 “I've been into the dealership three times in the last 12 or so months with no a/c. I have a 2016 Civic, with 110k km 14 (65k miles). I was told today that the evaporator is the 15 culprit, needs replacing, and as its not part of the 10yr warranty extension, it'll be nearly $1500 after tax - $900 16 for the evap unit, and another $525 for an a/c recharge. 17 Then I was told the part is on back order for 4 weeks. Not happy.”41 (Posted June 29, 2020). 18 19 “Hi! My 2016 Civic A/C went out last year due to a leak in the compressor. My A/C went out again just short of a 20 year later and now I am told that there is a leak in the 21 condenser (which is covered under the new 10 yr warranty), and also a leak in the evaporator (no longer 22 under warranty). I know that there are many issues with 23 the compressor and condenser, but has any one had issues with the evaporator? I am wondering if the other two 24 issues caused the evaporator to leak. My car is just out of 25 warranty so of course Honda is currently not willing to 26 40 2016-2019 Evaporator failures/leaks | Page 2 | 2016+ Honda Civic Forum (10th Gen) - Type R 27 Forum, Si Forum - CivicX.com (last visited April 21, 2021). 41 https://www.civicx.com/forum/threads/2016-a-c-compressor-leak.24603/page-5 (last visited 28 April 21, 2021).

Class Action Complaint - 48 - Case 2:21-cv-04030-VAP-JC Document 1 Filed 05/13/21 Page 49 of 115 Page ID #:49

cover the problem. I am not looking forward to my A/C 1 going out annually.”42 (Posted March 3, 2020). 2 “I cannot give this car with 5 rating due to a design defect 3 that Honda has not acknowledged the problem. I learned 4 that it has been problems for many owners. I had this car 5 for more than 2 years now. When the car reached near 40,000 miles, its air conditioning exhibited problem with 6 no cold air on a hot day. The replacement of the 7 air compressor was costly with labor $$$, but please do not pay this repair. It is a problem with Honda design. If 8 you have a car with this problem and it is still under 9 warranty, please bring it in the Honda Service Department for repair right away. Honda needs to recall its cars with 10 this air conditioner defect. With this issue, I gave the car a 43 11 3 rating. Its performance is good and it is reliable so far.” (Posted on February 1, 2020). 12 13 “Just got my 17’ Hatch last year, love everything about it but the AC started blowing hot air as well. My evaporator 14 is leaking and the dealership wanted $2,000+ for repairs. 15 Here’s hoping Honda listens and announces a fix for all of us. I would love to have AC in SoCal.”44 (Posted on 16 September 23, 2019). 17 “For the first year, the A/C was fine. Not really any cooler 18 or warmer than other cars, but it’s always taken a decent 19 amount of time to cool the car off. It gradually took longer and longer to cool the car down, until the second summer 20 of ownership, where the car would barely cool down, if at 21 all. At the time, I had a short commute, and I don’t typically use A/C on short trips, so it wasn‘t a huge priority 22 for me. Took it to the dealership March 2018 and they 23 diagnosed it as requiring a recharge. I was still under warranty at the time. About a year later, same thing. Take 24 it to the dealership, this time it’s diagnosed as a failed

25 42 26 https://www.civicx.com/forum/threads/2016-a-c-compressor-leak.24603/page-3 (last visited April 21, 2021). 27 43 Id. 44 2016-2019 Evaporator failures/leaks | 2016+ Honda Civic Forum (10th Gen) - Type R Forum, 28 Si Forum - CivicX.com (last visited April 21, 2021).

Class Action Complaint - 49 - Case 2:21-cv-04030-VAP-JC Document 1 Filed 05/13/21 Page 50 of 115 Page ID #:50

compressor. $1,214. I’m lucky, since my dealership was 1 able to work with Honda corporate, since it was initially 2 diagnosed as an issue under warranty … so I’ll only have to pay a $250 deductible for the repair. Still, not happy 3 about the low failure mileage.”45 (Posted on April 15, 4 2019). 5 “The A/C of the car stopped working at just over 45,000 6 miles. Because it was winter and it is past the 36,000 mile 7 warranty, we postponed having the car checked and repaired. Today, at just over 51,000 miles, Lucas Auto 8 Center of Van Nuys, California, diagnosed it and found 9 that the compressor and condenser of the car leak and the A/C is empty of refrigerant. The compressor and 10 condenser need to be replaced! The total estimated cost of 11 the repair is $1,704.83, which we don’t have. I plan to picket the Honda dealership where I bought the car to 12 discourage people from buying a car that fails in a big way 46 13 before 50,000!” (Posted on November 1, 2018).

14 “So I started to notice my AC was blowing warm air. I 15 soon took it into a dealership and they ran a diagnosis on it and then soon found that a rock went through my 16 condenser. It will not be covered with warranty since it 17 wasn’t caused by the manufacturer defect. So I had to spend $700 to replace the condenser and a Freon and labor. 18 Everything was fine but about I drove about 32,000 miles 19 it started to happen again. I took it once again to the dealership and said there might be a small or big leak. 20 Since I already drove it 12,000 miles my warranty was 21 ended after I drove it at over 105,000 (current miles). So they gave an option to clean all the systems AC line 22 without any computer diagnosed, so they added a new 23 Freon, and a tracer capsule into the compressor system line to keep everything ‘lubricated’ inside the compressor. 24 Then, they also added dye into the AC lines for it to

25 45 26 2016 A/C Compressor Leak | 2016+ Honda Civic Forum (10th Gen) - Type R Forum, Si Forum - CivicX.com (last visited April 21, 2021). 27 46 https://www.carcomplaints.com/Honda/Civic/2016/AC_heater/AC_not_working_properly.shtml 28 (last visited April 21, 2021).

Class Action Complaint - 50 - Case 2:21-cv-04030-VAP-JC Document 1 Filed 05/13/21 Page 51 of 115 Page ID #:51

determine where the leak is coming from. This was very 1 hard to tell because I have to drive it close to 12,000 miles 2 if the same problem occurs again I have to run the same diagnosis again in order for them to determine where the 3 leak is at.”47 (Posted on October 1, 2018). 4 5 “A/C was not cooling on the driver’s side. Noticed leak on compressor and lines after the compressor was replaced 6 under warranty. Dealer confirmed leak on low pressure 7 line. Honda advised it would not be covered outside of the warranty period. Paying out of pocket to fix the line and 8 recharge the system. Arbitration is being filed against 9 Honda as the repair was not competed properly under warranty.”48 (Posted on September 26, 2018). 10 11 “Got an update from the service manager. Dropped my Honda off June 26 for the AC and still have not had it back 12 yet. They already replaced the condenser and the 13 evaporator and are going to replace the compressor next. They said it doesn’t come in until mid August 8. Kind of 14 wishing I didn’t by this car now.”49 (Posted August 2, 15 2016).

16 “We just purchased a 2016 Civic Sedan Touring. We only 17 have a few hundred miles on it. Our issue is this, the a/c works great while moving, once you sit for about 4 or 5 18 min it starts blowing like outside air temperature air, not 19 cold a/c air anymore. No Econ button on either. U can shut system off and then turn back on and it blows cold air 20 again for a few minutes then stops. I tried it on auto and 21 recirculation and normal and it does it no matter. Am I missing something here? We noticed it yesterday while it 22 sitting in a drive through a bit and while sitting outside a 23 friend’s house waiting for them today. While moving it'll freeze u out.”50 (Posted on June 12, 2016). 24 47 25 https://www.carcomplaints.com/Honda/Civic/2016/AC_heater/AC_not_working_properly.shtml 26 (last visited April 13, 2021). 48 Id. 27 49 A/C help | Page 5 | 2016+ Honda Civic Forum (10th Gen) - Type R Forum, Si Forum - CivicX.com (last visited April 21, 2021). 28 50 https://www.civicx.com/threads/a-c-help.4129/ (last visited April 13, 2021).

Class Action Complaint - 51 - Case 2:21-cv-04030-VAP-JC Document 1 Filed 05/13/21 Page 52 of 115 Page ID #:52

1 “I have had to bring my Civic Touring model in three 2 times for the AC. The first time I brought it in was to install the interior lighting kit and they noticed it wasn't blowing 3 cold and fixed it. I brought it in because it blew hot air one 4 day and they said there was a leak and replaced something. 5 About a week later it blew hot air again and I dropped my car off on June 28 and they couldn't figure it out. They 6 replaced the evaporator and the compressor and still 7 broken. They called an engineer and he couldn't figure it out either. They told me they were going to replace the 8 entire AC unit. Tomorrow will be three weeks my car has 51 9 been in the shop.” (Posted on March 8, 2016)

10 199. As this small sampling of complaints from vehicle owner forums 11 shows, consumers have been vocal in complaining about the AC System Defect and 12 the AC failure it causes. A multi-billion dollar automaker like Honda undoubtedly 13 had and has a marketing department that tracks such sites and should reasonably 14 have been aware of the AC System Defect in the Class Vehicles. 15 200. Indeed, as demonstrated by the posting below, Honda routinely 16 monitors third-party websites on which its customers discuss defects affecting their 17 Honda vehicles – including the Defect – and responds to its customers: 18

19 “Bought brand new Civic EX-T 1.5 back in the beginning 20 of June. Had no issues up until July when an apparent cable going to the TCM had some bent pins in it causing a 21 failure to have engine turnover as well as every indicator 22 come flashing up from parking brake failure to engine emissions failure. Had it towed on a Sunday, they fixed the 23 bent pins and reconnected to the TCM, all was fixed and 24 went on my way. Fast forward to 3/5/17. Same issue happened again, no engine turnover and a slew of errant 25 indicators across screens. Had it towed again. This time 26 they said it’s an issue with the TCM unit itself and have 27 51 A/C help | Page 2 | 2016+ Honda Civic Forum (10th Gen) - Type R Forum, Si Forum - 28 CivicX.com (last visited 4/20/2021)

Class Action Complaint - 52 - Case 2:21-cv-04030-VAP-JC Document 1 Filed 05/13/21 Page 53 of 115 Page ID #:53

order a new one. Part will be here in the next day or so and 1 fixed within an hour.”52 2 An official Honda representative from Honda Customer Service responded to 3 4 the post on March 6, 2017. 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16

17 18 7. Honda Acknowledged the Defect in a TSB 19 201. A July 2016 Technical Service Bulletin (“TSB”) demonstrates that 20 Honda has known of the Defect since before it placed Class Vehicles into the stream 21 of commerce. 22 202. In TSB No. ATS 160709, Honda advised its authorized dealers and 23 service technicians of the AC System’s propensity to crack and leak refrigerant.53 24 Specifically, it acknowledged that Honda had been “getting reports of the A/C not 25 blowing cold air[,]” and that “service techs are noticing there’s refrigerant oil on the 26

27 52https://www.civicx.com/threads/civic-ex-t-transmission-control-module-tcm.9487/#post- 157956 (last visited April 21, 2021). 28 53 https://static.nhtsa.gov/odi/tsbs/2016/MC-10084408-2280.pdf (last visited April 13, 2021).

Class Action Complaint - 53 - Case 2:21-cv-04030-VAP-JC Document 1 Filed 05/13/21 Page 54 of 115 Page ID #:54

1 radiator fan shroud and surrounding areas, indicating a leak[,]” although it 2 nevertheless failed to immediately take affirmative steps to make actual and 3 prospective Class Vehicle owners and lessees aware of the Defect, or to attempt early 4 remediation of the Defect, thereby ensuring that tens of thousands of Class Vehicles 5 would manifest the Defect, and that owners of Class Vehicles would incur millions 6 of dollars in often-futile repair costs. 7 203. The timing of that TSB is critical, because TSBs are issued after 8 automobile manufacturers open an investigation into a potential defect, compile their 9 findings, draft a proposed remedy for internal review and then ultimately issue a 10 finalized TSB to dealers. In re MyFord Touch Consumer Litig., 46 F. Supp. 3d 936, 11 958 (N.D. Cal. 2014) (observing TSBS are preceded by “an accretion of knowledge 12 by [the manufacturer].” Courts have held that 16 months is a reasonable time period 13 for a manufacturer to investigate and issue a TSB in response to a defect. Butler v. 14 Porsche Cars N. Am., Inc., No. 16-CV-02042-LHK, 2016 WL 4474630, at *5 (N.D. 15 Cal. Aug. 25, 2016) (“The TSB’s relevance to the issue of GM’s knowledge is even 16 more compelling in the instant case, where only eight months elapsed between the 17 date of sale of Plaintiff's car and the release date of the TSB, compared to Philips, 18 which had a gap of 16 months between the date of sale and the date of the TSB. It is 19 reasonable to infer that, in order for Defendants to release the TSB addressing the 20 defect only eight months after the date of sale, Defendants had knowledge of the 21 defect by at least May 2007.”). 22 204. Honda nevertheless chose to conceal from Class Members that the 23 components within the AC System are defective and eventually will require costly 24 repairs, and that the Defect reduced the value of the vehicle at the time of sale and/or 25 will reduce the resale value of Class Vehicles. 26 205. In sum, as early as 2015, and certainly well before Plaintiffs and Class 27 Members purchased or leased their Class Vehicles, Honda was aware of the AC 28 System Defect, should have been aware of the AC System Defect through the

Class Action Complaint - 54 - Case 2:21-cv-04030-VAP-JC Document 1 Filed 05/13/21 Page 55 of 115 Page ID #:55

1 exercise of reasonable care, and/or was negligent in failing to be aware of the AC 2 System Defect, based on, among others, the following sources: 3 a. Pre-release design, manufacturing, engineering, and testing data; 4 b. Detailed data gathered by Honda about large number of AC System 5 Defect repairs; 6 7 c. Knowledge Honda had of the large number of replacement AC 8 System parts ordered from Honda; 9 d. Numerous and consistent consumer complaints made directly to 10 Honda about the AC System Defect; 11 e. Numerous and consistent consumer complaints collected by 12 NHTSA ODI about the AC System Defect; 13 f. Numerous and consistent consumer complaints made on online 14 vehicle owner forums; 15 g. Honda service center employees’ familiarity with and knowledge of 16 the AC System Defect; and 17 h. Service bulletins sent by Honda to its dealerships evincing 18 knowledge of ongoing issues with AC Systems in the Class 19 Vehicles; 20 206. Moreover, the large number and consistency of Class member 21 complaints describing the AC System’s propensity to crack, leak refrigerant, lose 22 pressure, and fail to function underscores the fact that Class Members considered 23 the AC System Defect to be a material safety issue to the reasonable consumer. 24 25 8. Honda’s Marketing and Concealment of the Defect 26 207. Upon information and belief, Honda knowingly marketed and 27 sold/leased the Class Vehicles with the AC System Defect, while willfully 28

Class Action Complaint - 55 - Case 2:21-cv-04030-VAP-JC Document 1 Filed 05/13/21 Page 56 of 115 Page ID #:56

1 concealing the true inferior quality and sub-standard performance of the Class 2 Vehicle’s AC Systems. 3 208. Honda generally markets the Class Vehicles to consumers via extensive 4 nationwide, multimedia advertising campaigns on television, the Internet, 5 billboards, print publications, mailings, and through other- mass media. 6 209. Both AHM and HNA have their principal place of business in Torrance, 7 California. Upon information and belief, the principal place of business for both 8 AHM and HNA is the location where the decisions regarding marketing, advertising, 9 product development, and the alleged misconduct occurred. 10 210. Honda’s marketing campaigns typically focus on the safety and 11 reliability of Class Vehicles. For example, upon debuting both the 2016 and 2017 12 Civic, Honda issued press releases touting the Vehicles’ safety features and 13 performance.54 Honda’s advertisements build upon these themes, and often reference 14 the Civic as a “top safety pick.”55 15 211. Honda also touted Class Vehicles as “a new benchmark in the compact 16 class in terms of spaciousness, fuel efficiency, safety features, interior quality and 17 dynamic performance”, and as delivering “premium comfort” through a “[d]ual- 18 zone automatic climate control” system.56 19 212. In practice, Class Vehicles are not as comfortable or reliable as Honda’s 20 marketing suggests. Honda concealed the fact that the Class Vehicles are not 21 comfortable or enjoyable under ordinary conditions because the AC Systems 22 23

24 54https://hondanews.com/releases/2016-honda-civic-sedan-press-kit- overview?query=high+strength+steel (last visited April 21, 2021). 25 https://hondanews.com/releases/2017-honda-civic-hatchback-press-kit-overview (last visited 26 April 21, 2021). 55https://hondanews.com/honda-automobiles/releases/all-new-2016-honda-civic-coupe-earns- 27 iihs-top-safety-pick-rating (last visited April 21, 2021). 56https://hondanews.com/releases/2016-honda-civic-sedan-press-kit- 28 overview?query=high+strength+steel (last visited April 21, 2021).

Class Action Complaint - 56 - Case 2:21-cv-04030-VAP-JC Document 1 Filed 05/13/21 Page 57 of 115 Page ID #:57

1 repeatedly and consistently leak refrigerant, lose pressure, and fail to provide cool 2 air into the passenger cabin. 3 213. Plaintiffs and Class Members were exposed to Honda’s long-term, 4 national, multimedia marketing campaign touting the supposed quality, safety, and 5 comfort of the Class Vehicles, and Class Members justifiably made their decisions 6 to purchase or lease their Class Vehicles based on Honda’s misleading marketing 7 that concealed the true, defective nature of the Class Vehicles. 8 214. Further, Honda knowingly misled Class Members about the true, 9 defective nature of the Class Vehicles. As detailed above, upon information and 10 belief, Honda has been aware of the AC System Defect since at least 2015, and 11 certainly well before Plaintiffs and Class Members purchased or leased their Class 12 Vehicles, through pre-release evaluation and testing; investigations that resulted in 13 TSBs; the high number of AC System repairs and replacement part sales; and the 14 numerous and consistent complaints about the AC System Defect made directly to 15 Honda, collected by NHTSA, and posted on public online forums. 16 215. In sum, Honda has actively concealed the existence and nature of the 17 AC System Defect from Class Members since at least 2015 despite its knowledge of 18 the existence and pervasiveness of the AC System Defect. Specifically, Honda has: 19 a. Failed to disclose, at and after the time of purchase, lease, and/or 20 service, any and all known material defects of the Class Vehicles, 21 including the AC System Defect; 22 23 b. Failed to disclose, at and after the time of purchase, lease, and/or 24 service, that the Class Vehicles’ AC Systems were defective and not 25 fit for their intended purposes; 26 c. Failed to disclose, and actively concealed, the fact that the Class 27 Vehicles’ AC Systems were defective, despite that Honda learned 28 of the AC System Defect as early as 2015, and certainly well before

Class Action Complaint - 57 - Case 2:21-cv-04030-VAP-JC Document 1 Filed 05/13/21 Page 58 of 115 Page ID #:58

Plaintiffs and Class Members purchased or leased their Class 1 Vehicles. 2 d. Failed to disclose, and actively concealed, the existence and 3 4 pervasiveness of the AC System Defect even when directly asked 5 about it by Class Members during communications with Honda, 6 Honda Customer Care, Honda dealerships, and Honda service 7 centers; 8 e. Actively concealed the AC System Defect by forcing Class 9 Members to bear the cost of temporary “fixes” while at the same 10 time performing those “fixes” at no (or lower) cost for those who 11 complained and often, and calling these “goodwill” services; and 12 f. Actively concealed the AC System Defect by consistently treating 13 the AC System failures with temporary “fixes,” so that the AC 14 System Defect is not effectively corrected in Class Members’ 15 vehicles, even though Class Members were led to believe that the 16 “fixes” had cured the AC System Defect in their Vehicles. 17 216. By engaging in the conduct described above, Honda has concealed, and 18 continues to conceal, the AC System Defect from Class Members. If Class Members 19 had had knowledge of the information Honda concealed, they would not have 20 purchased or leased the Class Vehicles or would have paid less to do so. 21 217. Absent discovery, Plaintiffs are unaware of, and unable through 22 reasonable investigation to obtain, the true names and identities of those individuals 23 at Honda responsible for disseminating false and misleading marketing materials 24 regarding the Class Vehicles. Honda necessarily is in possession of all of this 25 information. Plaintiff’s claims arise out of Honda’s fraudulent concealment of the 26 AC System Defect, and its representations about the quality, safety, and comfort of 27 the Class Vehicles. To the extent that Plaintiffs’ claims arise from Honda’s 28

Class Action Complaint - 58 - Case 2:21-cv-04030-VAP-JC Document 1 Filed 05/13/21 Page 59 of 115 Page ID #:59

1 fraudulent concealment, there is no one document or communication, and no one 2 interaction, upon which Plaintiffs base their claims. Plaintiffs allege that at all 3 relevant times, including specifically at the time they purchased or leased their Class 4 Vehicles, Honda knew, or was reckless in not knowing, of the AC System Defect; 5 Honda was under a duty to disclose the Defect based upon its exclusive knowledge 6 of it, and its concealment of it; and Honda never disclosed the Defect to Plaintiffs or 7 the public at any time or place or in any manner. 8 218. Plaintiffs make the following specific fraud allegations with as much 9 specificity as possible absent access to the information necessarily available only to 10 Honda: a. Who: Honda actively concealed the AC System Defect from 11 Plaintiffs and Class Members while simultaneously touting the 12 safety, comfort, sophistication, and quality of the Class Vehicles, as 13 14 alleged in the preceding paragraphs. Plaintiffs are unaware of, and 15 therefore unable to identify, the true names and identities of those 16 specific individuals at Honda responsible for such decisions. 17 b. What: Honda knew, or was reckless or negligent in not knowing, 18 that the Class Vehicles contain the AC System Defect, as alleged in 19 the preceding paragraphs. Honda concealed the Defect and made 20 representations about the safety, comfort, sophistication, world- 21 class quality, and other attributes of the Class Vehicles, as specified 22 above in the preceding paragraphs. 23 c. When: Honda concealed material information regarding the Defect 24 at all times and made representations about the quality, safety, and 25 comfort of the Class Vehicles, starting no later than 2015, or at the 26 subsequent introduction of certain models of Class Vehicles to the 27 market, continuing through the time of sale/lease, and on an ongoing 28 basis, and continuing to this day, as alleged above in the preceding

Class Action Complaint - 59 - Case 2:21-cv-04030-VAP-JC Document 1 Filed 05/13/21 Page 60 of 115 Page ID #:60

paragraphs. Honda still has not disclosed the truth about the Defect 1 in the Class Vehicles to anyone outside of Honda. Honda has never 2 taken any action to inform consumers about the true nature of the 3 4 Defect in Class Vehicles. And when consumers brought their 5 Vehicles to Honda complaining of AC System failures, Honda 6 denied any knowledge of or responsibility for the AC System 7 Defect. 8 d. Where: Honda concealed material information regarding the true 9 nature of the Defect in every communication it had with Plaintiffs 10 and Class Members and made representations about the quality, 11 safety, and comfort of the Class Vehicles. Plaintiffs are aware of no 12 document, communication, or other place or thing, in which Honda 13 disclosed the truth about the Defect in the Class Vehicles to anyone 14 outside of Honda. Such information is not adequately disclosed in 15 any sales documents, displays, advertisements, warranties, owner’s 16 manuals, or on Honda’s website. 17 e. How: Honda concealed the AC System Defect from Plaintiffs and 18 Class Members and made representations about the quality, safety, 19 and comfort of the Class Vehicles. Honda actively concealed the 20 truth about the existence and nature of the Defect from Plaintiffs and 21 Class Members at all times, even though it knew about the Defect 22 and knew that information about the Defect would be important to a 23 reasonable consumer, and Honda promised in its marketing 24 materials that Class Vehicles have qualities that they do not have. 25 f. Why: Honda actively concealed material information about the 26 Defect in the Class Vehicles for the purpose of inducing Plaintiffs 27 and Class Members to purchase and/or lease Class Vehicles, rather 28 than purchasing or leasing competitors’ vehicles and made

Class Action Complaint - 60 - Case 2:21-cv-04030-VAP-JC Document 1 Filed 05/13/21 Page 61 of 115 Page ID #:61

representations about the quality, safety, and comfort of the Class 1 Vehicles. Had Honda disclosed the truth, for example in its 2 advertisements or other materials or communications, Plaintiffs and 3 4 Class Members (all reasonable consumers) would have been aware 5 of it and would not have bought or leased the Class Vehicles or 6 would have paid less for them. 7 9. Honda’s Warranty Extension Program 8 219. Due to the pervasive nature of the Defect, on August 9, 2019, Honda 9 informed its dealers through TSB No. 19-091 that it would extend warranty coverage 10 for AC System failures in Class Vehicles for up to ten (10) years and unlimited 11 mileages (the “Program”). 12 220. Although Honda’s Program purportedly provides some relief to a 13 subset of Class Members, it does not provide the full relief to which the Class is 14 entitled. 15 221. First, the Program does not cover all Class Vehicles. Although Honda 16 equips all Civic vehicles, including “hatchback” vehicles, with identical AC 17 Systems, Honda excluded hatchbacks from the program.57 Based on Honda’s own 18 estimates of hatchback sales,58 the Program likely excludes approximately 200,000 19 Class Vehicles. 20 222. Second, the Program does not cover all repairs the Defect necessitates. 21 The Program covers only replacement of AC System condensers that failed due to 22 an alleged manufacturing defect that Honda claims causes condensers to develop 23 pinhole leaks due to corrosion. The Program does not cover repairs to other AC 24 System components such as hoses, compressors, evaporators or condensers that 25 failed but did not evidence corrosion. 26 57 https://www.civicx.com/forum/threads/ac-condenser-tsb-19-091-the-case-for-including- 27 hatches.43204/ (last visited April 21, 2021). 58 https://www.wardsauto.com/industry/honda-calling-50000-civic-hatch-sales (last visited April 28 21, 2021).

Class Action Complaint - 61 - Case 2:21-cv-04030-VAP-JC Document 1 Filed 05/13/21 Page 62 of 115 Page ID #:62

1 223. The Program’s parameters thus are unduly narrow. For example, 2 although a condenser may begin to corrode, it may fail to display visible symptoms 3 yet suffer from a weakened metal surface more susceptible to punctures from road 4 debris. The Defect also often manifests in components other than the condenser, such 5 as the compressor and evaporator, but repairs thereto are ineligible for Program 6 coverage. 7 224. Third, merely replacing the condenser does not cure the systemic defect 8 plaguing Class Vehicle AC Systems. One need look no further than the experiences 9 of Plaintiffs Heier, Fairchild, and Yin: Honda replaced each of their condensers at 10 no charge, only for the Defect to manifest in a different component (the compressor 11 for all) months later. Absent class members likewise report AC System failures 12 following condenser replacement. The Program thus does not provide the complete 13 “fix” to which Class members are entitled. 14 225. Fourth, Class Members report that Honda continues to repair failed AC 15 Systems using equally defective replacement parts. Because the AC System Defect 16 can manifest years after authorized dealers effect repairs, many Class Members may 17 experience additional AC System failures more than ten years after purchase. As 18 such, the Program fails to provide Class Members that for which they bargained: 19 Class Vehicles equipped with AC Systems that Class Members reasonably expected 20 would function through the end of the vehicles’ useful life. 21 226. Fifth, the Program is unlikely to provide relief to former owners and 22 lessees who divested themselves of their Class Vehicles before Honda publicly 23 announced the warranty extension. The plain language of the owner notification 24 letter Honda disseminated in November 2019 indicates Honda notified only then- 25 current owners and lessees of their purported right to seek reimbursement for 26 expenses incurred in replacing condensers that failed due to corrosion. See 27 November 2019 letter to Honda owners, attached as Exhibit C. If Honda failed to 28

Class Action Complaint - 62 - Case 2:21-cv-04030-VAP-JC Document 1 Filed 05/13/21 Page 63 of 115 Page ID #:63

1 notify former owners and lessees, those members of the putative Class are unlikely 2 to secure reimbursement for even the limited subset of repairs the Program covers. 3 227. Sixth, the Program will not compensate Class Members for either the 4 diminution in value of their Vehicles, or the amount by which they overpaid for 5 vehicles that suffer from a known, safety-related Defect. 6 228. In short, Honda’s Program fails to provide relief to many (if not most) 7 Plaintiffs and Class Members. 8 10. The Elkins Litigation 9 229. This is not the first time Plaintiffs Munoz, Hu, and Fairchild bring 10 claims in connection with the AC Defect. 11 230. In May 2019—and then subsequently September 2019 for the amended 12 complaint—Plaintiffs Munoz, Hu, Fairchild, and several others not party to this 13 action, commenced in this District in an action styled Elkins et al. v. American 14 Honda Motor Co. et al., No. 19-cv-008180-JLS-KES (“Elkins”). Elkins was 15 assigned to the Honorable Josephine L. Staton. 16 231. After Honda made known its intention to implement the Program, the 17 Elkins plaintiffs filed an amended complaint addressing the Program’s limitations, 18 particularly insofar as the Program only provides warranty coverage for condensers 19 that failed due to corrosion, while shifting onto Plaintiffs and the Class the cost of 20 the other repairs the Defect necessitates. 21 232. On October 18, 2019, Honda moved to dismiss the amended complaint 22 for lack of standing and failure to state a claim. See Elkins, ECF No. 40. On January 23 17, 2020, Judge Staton held oral argument, at which time she “address[ed] the 24 threshold issue of standing.” Id. at ECF No. 57. 25 233. On July 20, 2020, Judge Staton issued a memorandum opinion and 26 order granting Honda’s Motion to Dismiss, entirely based on Honda’s claim the 27 Program offered plaintiffs relief. See Elkins, ECF No. 60 (the “Order”). Specifically, 28 Judge Staton held the Elkins plaintiffs’ claims were not ripe because they: (1) had

Class Action Complaint - 63 - Case 2:21-cv-04030-VAP-JC Document 1 Filed 05/13/21 Page 64 of 115 Page ID #:64

1 yet to submit claims for reimbursement for prior repairs through the extension 2 program—including for repairs to components like the compressor, which the TSB 3 announcing the program expressly excluded from coverage; or (2) report that their 4 AC Systems failed following in-warranty repairs and that Honda to refused to cover 5 the costs of those subsequent repairs—including replacement of components other 6 than the condenser—pursuant to its New Vehicle Limited Warranty or the newly 7 announced Program. See generally Order at 6-10. 8 234. In her Order, Judge Staton advised that “[o]nce Plaintiffs have availed 9 themselves-or attempted to avail themselves-of Honda’s warranty extension 10 program, including its reimbursement aspect, a court will be better positioned to rule 11 on the efficacy and legal sufficiency of Honda's warranties, as well as whether 12 Honda breached any of its warranties, if such a ruling becomes necessary.” Id. at 9. 13 Judge Staton entered the Order without prejudice, but also denied Plaintiffs leave to 14 amend. Id. at 10. 15 235. After the parties appeared for argument on January 17, 2020, but before 16 Judge Staton ruled on Honda’s motion, several newly discovered facts came to light. 17 236. First, then-Plaintiffs David and Laura Elkins—former owners of a 18 Class Vehicle that experienced an AC System failure due to a leak in the 19 condenser—reported that Honda did not provide them notice of the Program. 20 Although Honda issued TSB 19-091 in August 2019, the exemplar customer letter 21 it appended to the motion to dismiss filed in Elkins expressly states it did not intend 22 to disclose the Program to Class Vehicle owners until November 2019. ECF No. 40- 23 2, 1. Further, the exemplar letter’s plain language indicated that Honda intended to 24 mail the letter only to current owners and lessees of Class Vehicles despite the fact 25 that former owners purportedly also are eligible for relief. Id. As a result, former 26 owners are unlikely to learn they are eligible for reimbursement, significantly 27 undermining its effectiveness—as well as its cost to Honda. 28

Class Action Complaint - 64 - Case 2:21-cv-04030-VAP-JC Document 1 Filed 05/13/21 Page 65 of 115 Page ID #:65

1 237. Second, several of the Elkins plaintiffs had occasion to (1) seek 2 reimbursement for AC System repairs—including to components other than the 3 condenser—through the Program, or (2) following subsequent AC System failures, 4 tender their vehicles to authorized Honda dealers for free, Program-eligible repairs. 5 See ECF No. 40-2, Ex. 2 (“If the vehicle’s A/C does not blow cold air, go to any 6 authorized Honda dealer to have the vehicle inspected. If the A/C condenser is 7 leaking because it was not manufactured to specification, it will be replaced. This 8 work will be done for free.”). The experiences of these plaintiffs—some of which 9 are now also parties to this action—confirmed the Program’s inherent limitations 10 and that Plaintiffs’ claims are ripe for adjudication. 11 238. Third, the Elkins plaintiffs were able to confirm that Honda’s Program 12 will not reimburse vehicle owners for non-condenser repairs. For example, Plaintiffs 13 Munoz and Hu—parties to both this action and Elkins—sought reimbursement or 14 warranty coverage for compressor repairs after the Honda implemented the Program 15 only for Honda to inform them the Program only covers condenser repairs. 16 239. Prior to bringing suit in Elkins, Plaintiff Munoz’s AC System suffered 17 a compressor failure. Following the Order, he contacted Honda to request 18 reimbursement through the program for expenses incurred in replacing his failed 19 compressor. But on August 13, 2020, American Honda advised Plaintiff Munoz that 20 compressor repairs were not eligible for reimbursement under the Program. 21 240. Plaintiff Hu contacted Honda on several occasions following the 22 Court’s July 20, 2020 Order seeking reimbursement through the Program for his 23 prior compressor failure. Auto Nation Honda in Fremont, California, finally 24 informed him that that because TSB19-091 only covers condensers, compressor 25 repairs are ineligible for the Program, and Honda would not reimburse him for his 26 prior compressor repair. 27 28

Class Action Complaint - 65 - Case 2:21-cv-04030-VAP-JC Document 1 Filed 05/13/21 Page 66 of 115 Page ID #:66

1 241. In short, Munoz and Hu’s experiences confirm the Program does not 2 provide complete relief to Plaintiffs and Class members who previously paid to 3 replace non-condenser AC System components, just as the Elkins plaintiffs alleged. 4 242. As alleged supra, Honda originally “repaired” Plaintiff Fairchild’s AC 5 System under warranty in July 2020. Her AC System failed again shortly thereafter, 6 so Plaintiff proceeded as instructed in the owner notification letter she received: she 7 arranged to bring her vehicle to an authorized Honda dealer for inspection and, 8 hopefully, free repairs. An authorized Honda technician determined that both her 9 condenser and compressor had fractured and required replacement. The condenser 10 was replaced at no cost pursuant to the warranty Program, but the Program only 11 covered repair and/or replacement of certain “defective” condensers, and therefore 12 she had to pay approximately $1,400 out-of-pocket to replace her compressor. 13 243. Plaintiff Fairchild’s experiences thereby confirmed the Program does 14 not cover repairs to AC System components beyond the condenser. 15 244. In light of these developments and discoveries, Plaintiffs filed a motion 16 for reconsideration shortly after Judge Staton issued her June 20 Order. See Elkins, 17 ECF 62. Judge Staton ultimately denied that motion on grounds unrelated to the 18 merits, but noted in her resulting order that the plaintiffs did not demonstrate “they 19 would suffer ‘manifest injustice’ by having to refile this matter as a new lawsuit.” 20 Elkins, ECF 65, 2. Accordingly, several of the Elkins plaintiffs—Plaintiffs Munoz 21 Hu, and Fairchild—filed this new lawsuit, in which they are joined by several 22 Plaintiffs who were not parties to Elkins. 23 CLASS ACTION ALLEGATIONS 24 245. Pursuant to Rules 23(b)(2), 23(b)(3) and/or 23(c)(4) of the Federal 25 Rules of Civil Procedure, Plaintiffs will seek certification of a nationwide class 26 preliminarily defined as follows: 27 All persons who purchased or leased a 2016 to 2019 Honda Civic in 28 the United States (the “National Class”).

Class Action Complaint - 66 - Case 2:21-cv-04030-VAP-JC Document 1 Filed 05/13/21 Page 67 of 115 Page ID #:67

1 246. Plaintiffs Amado Munoz, Carolyn Heier, and Ben Hu also seek 2 certification of a California Subclass defined as follows: 3 All persons who purchased or leased a 2016 to 2019 Honda Civic in 4 California (the “California Class”). 5 247. Plaintiff Gary Tetrault also seeks certification of a Connecticut 6 Subclass defined as follows: 7 All persons who purchased or leased a 2016 to 2019 Honda Civic in 8 Connecticut (the “Connecticut Class”). 9 248. Plaintiff Robinson also seeks certification of a Florida Subclass 10 defined as follows: 11 All persons who purchased or leased a 2016 to 2019 Honda Civic in 12 Florida (the “Florida Class”). 13 249. Plaintiff Schwartz also seeks certification of an Oregon Subclass 14 defined as follows: 15 All persons who purchased or leased a 2016 to 2019 Honda Civic in 16 Oregon (the “Oregon Class”). 17 250. Plaintiff Frank Costobile also seeks certification of a Pennsylvania 18 Subclass defined as follows: 19 All persons who purchased or leased a 2016 to 2019 Honda Civic in 20 Pennsylvania (the “Pennsylvania Class”). 21 251. Plaintiffs Rachel Fairchild and James Tillery also seek certification of 22 a Virginia Subclass defined as follows: 23 All persons who purchased or leased a 2016 to 2019 Honda Civic in 24 Virginia (the “Virginia Class”). 25 252. Plaintiff Yin also seeks certification of a Washington Subclass defined 26 as follows: 27 All persons who purchased or leased a 2016 to 2019 Honda Civic in 28 Washington (the “Washington Class”).

Class Action Complaint - 67 - Case 2:21-cv-04030-VAP-JC Document 1 Filed 05/13/21 Page 68 of 115 Page ID #:68

1 253. The National Class and State Subclass definitions specifically exclude: 2 (a) all persons who have had their Class Vehicle re-purchased or “bought back” by 3 Honda (whether the buy-back was required by law or was solely by agreement), or 4 who previously signed a release of the defect claims alleged in this Complaint; (b) 5 Defendants and any of their current officers or executives; (c) any person, firm, 6 trust, corporation, or other entity who purchased a Class Vehicle solely for resale; 7 and (d) any Judge presiding over this action. 8 254. The scope of this class action neither seeks to include nor extinguish 9 any personal injury, death, or property damage claims arising from or relating to 10 the AC System Defect regarding any Class Vehicle. 11 255. The proposed classes meet the requirements of Federal Rule of Civil 12 Procedure 23(a) and 23 (b)(2), (b)(3) and/or (c)(4). 13 256. Numerosity and Ascertainability: The National Class and State 14 Subclasses are comprised of tens of thousands of Class Vehicle owners throughout 15 the United States, making joinder impractical. Moreover, the Class and Subclass 16 are composed of an easily ascertainable, readily identifiable set of individuals and 17 entities who purchased Class Vehicles. The members of the National Class and 18 State Subclasses are so numerous that joinder of all members is impracticable. The 19 precise number of National Class and State Subclass Members can be ascertained 20 only through discovery, which includes Honda’s network sales, service, and 21 complaint records. The disposition of their claims through a class action will benefit 22 both the parties and this Court. Furthermore, members of the National Class and 23 State Subclasses may be identified from records maintained by Honda and its 24 agents, and may be notified of the pendency of this action by mail, or other 25 appropriate means, using a form of notice customarily used in consumer class 26 actions. 27 257. Commonality: The critical questions of law and fact common to the 28 National Class and State Subclasses that will materially advance the litigation

Class Action Complaint - 68 - Case 2:21-cv-04030-VAP-JC Document 1 Filed 05/13/21 Page 69 of 115 Page ID #:69

1 include, but are not limited to, the following: 2 a. Whether Honda engaged in the conduct alleged herein; 3 b. Whether the Class Vehicles contain a safety defect; 4 c. Whether Honda knew about the AC System and, if so, how long Honda 5 has known of it; 6 d. Whether Honda defectively designed or manufactured the Class 7 Vehicles; 8 e. Whether Plaintiffs and Class Members were exposed to the same 9 omissions of fact or misleading advertising regarding the AC System 10 Defect; 11 f. Whether Honda’s conduct violates consumer protection statutes, false 12 advertising laws, sales contracts, warranty laws, and other laws alleged 13 herein; 14 g. Whether Plaintiffs and Class Members overpaid for their Class 15 Vehicles; 16 h. Whether Plaintiffs and Class Members are entitled to equitable relief, 17 including, but not limited to, restitution or injunctive relief, and 18 i. Whether Plaintiffs and Class Members are entitled to damages and 19 other monetary relief and, if so, in what amount. 20 258. Typicality: Plaintiffs’ claims are typical of the claims of the members 21 of the National Class and State Subclasses, as all such claims arise out of Honda’s 22 conduct in designing, manufacturing, warranting, and selling the Class Vehicles 23 with the AC System Defect. 24 259. Adequate Representation: Plaintiffs will fairly and adequately protect 25 the interests of Class Members and have no interests antagonistic to those of the 26 Class. Plaintiffs have retained counsel experienced in the prosecution of complex 27 class actions including, but not limited to, consumer class actions involving, inter 28 alia, breach of warranties, product liability, and product design defects.

Class Action Complaint - 69 - Case 2:21-cv-04030-VAP-JC Document 1 Filed 05/13/21 Page 70 of 115 Page ID #:70

1 260. Predominance: This class action is appropriate for certification 2 because questions of law and fact common to National Class and State Subclasses 3 predominate over questions affecting only individual members. 4 261. Superiority: A class action is superior to other available methods for 5 the fair and efficient adjudication of this controversy. Requiring individual National 6 Class and State Subclass Members to bring separate actions would create a 7 multiplicity of lawsuits burdening the court system and the risks of inconsistent 8 rulings and of contradictory judgments. Alternatively, the diminution in value 9 attributable to the defect may not be sufficient to economically justify individual 10 litigation of these claims. Because the damages suffered by each National Class and 11 State Subclass Member are relatively small compared to the expense and burden of 12 prosecuting this compelling case against a well-financed, multibillion-dollar 13 corporation, this class action is the only way each National Class and State Subclass 14 Member can redress the harm that Honda caused. 15 262. This lawsuit is also maintainable as a class action under Federal Rule 16 of Civil Procedure 23(b)(2) because Defendants have acted or refused to act on 17 grounds that are generally applicable to the National Class and State Subclasses, 18 thereby making final injunctive relief appropriate. 19 263. This lawsuit is also maintainable as a class action under Federal Rule 20 of Civil Procedure 23(c)(4) because Defendants have acted or refused to act on 21 grounds that are generally applicable to the National Class and State Subclasses, 22 thereby making certification appropriate for particular issues. 23 TOLLING OF STATUTES OF LIMITATIONS 24 264. Discovery Rule. Plaintiffs’ claims accrued upon discovery that the air 25 conditioning system that Honda designed, manufactured, and installed into the 26 Class Vehicles suffered from the AC System Defect, and that the AC System Defect 27 could not be repaired. While Honda knew of and omitted to disclose the AC System 28 Defect, Plaintiffs, Class Members, and Subclass Members could not and did not

Class Action Complaint - 70 - Case 2:21-cv-04030-VAP-JC Document 1 Filed 05/13/21 Page 71 of 115 Page ID #:71

1 discover this fact through reasonable diligent investigation until after they 2 experienced air conditioning failures, and reasonably excluded other potential 3 causes of the failures. 4 265. Active Concealment Tolling. Any statutes of limitations are tolled by 5 Honda’s knowing and active concealment of the AC System Defect. Honda kept 6 Plaintiffs and all Class and Subclass Members ignorant of vital information 7 essential to the pursuit of their claims, without any fault or lack of diligence on the 8 part of Plaintiffs. The details of Honda’s efforts to conceal its above-described 9 unlawful conduct are in its possession, custody, and control, to the exclusion of 10 Plaintiffs and the Class and Subclass Members. Plaintiffs and Class Members could 11 not reasonably have discovered the AC System Defect. 12 266. Estoppel. Honda was and is under a continuous duty to disclose to 13 Plaintiffs, as well as Class and Subclass Members, the true character, quality, and 14 nature of the Class Vehicles’ air conditioning system. At all relevant times, and 15 continuing to this day, Honda knowingly, affirmatively, and actively misrepresents 16 and omits the true character, quality, and nature of the Class Vehicles’ air 17 conditioners, including the AC System Defect. The details of Honda’s efforts to 18 conceal its above-described unlawful conduct are in its possession, custody, and 19 control, to the exclusion of Plaintiffs and Class and Subclass Members. Plaintiffs 20 and Class and Subclass Members reasonably relied upon Honda’s knowing and/or 21 active omissions. Based on the foregoing, Honda is estopped from relying upon any 22 statutes of limitation in defense of this action. 23 267. Equitable Tolling. Honda took active steps to omit the fact that it 24 wrongfully, improperly, illegally, and repeatedly manufactured, marketed, 25 distributed, sold, and/or leased the Class Vehicles with the AC System Defect. The 26 details of Honda’s efforts to conceal its above-described unlawful conduct are in its 27 possession, custody, and control, to the exclusion of the Plaintiffs, Class and 28 Subclass Members. When Plaintiffs learned about this material information, they

Class Action Complaint - 71 - Case 2:21-cv-04030-VAP-JC Document 1 Filed 05/13/21 Page 72 of 115 Page ID #:72

1 exercised due diligence by thoroughly investigating the situation, retaining counsel, 2 and pursuing their claims. Honda wrongfully omitted its deceitful acts described 3 above. Should it be necessary, therefore, all applicable statutes of limitation are 4 tolled under the doctrine of equitable tolling. 5 6 FIRST CLAIM FOR RELIEF Breach of Express Warranty 7 (On behalf of the residents of the United States and its Territories) 8 9 268. Plaintiffs incorporate by reference the allegations contained in the 10 preceding paragraphs of this Complaint. 11 269. Plaintiffs bring this claim individually and on behalf of the National 12 Class, or, in the alternative, on behalf of the State Subclasses against Honda. 13 270. Each Plaintiff brings her own claims under the laws of their home 14 States as codified below: 15 a. Cal. Com. Code § 2313, et seq.; 16 b. Conn. Gen. Stat. § 42a-2-313, et seq.; 17 c. Fla. Code § 672.313, et seq.; 18 d. Or. Rev. Stat. § 72.3130, et seq.; 19 e. 13 Pa. Cons. Stat. § 2313, et seq.; 20 f. Va. Code § 8.2-313, et seq.; and 21 g. Wash. Rev. Code § 62A.2-313, et seq.; 22 271. Plaintiffs also bring claims on behalf of the Class under the laws of the 23 following States as codified below: 24 a. Ala. Code § 7-2-313, et seq.; 25 b. Alaska Stat. § 45.02.313, et seq.; 26 c. Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 47-2313, et seq.; 27 d. Ark. Code § 4-2-313, et seq.; 28 e. Colo. Rev. Stat. § 4-2-313, et seq.;

Class Action Complaint - 72 - Case 2:21-cv-04030-VAP-JC Document 1 Filed 05/13/21 Page 73 of 115 Page ID #:73

1 f. 6 Del. C. § 2-313, et seq.; 2 g. D.C. Code § 28:2-313, et seq.; 3 h. O.C.G.A. § 11-2-313, et seq.; 4 i. Haw. Rev. Stat. § 490:2-313, et seq.; 5 j. Idaho Code § 28-2-313, et seq.; 6 k. 810 Ill. Comp. Stat. 5/2-313, et seq.; 7 l. Ind. Code § 26-1-2-313, et seq.; 8 m. Iowa Code § 554.2313, et seq.; 9 n. Kan. Stat. § 84-2-313, et seq.; 10 o. Ky. Rev. Stat. § 355.2-313, et seq.; 11 p. La. Rev. Stat § 9:2800.53(6) , et seq.; 12 q. 11 M.R.S.A. § 2-313, et seq.; 13 r. Mass. Code 106, § 2-313, et seq.; 14 s. Md. Code Ann., Com. Law § 2-313, et seq.; 15 t. Mich. Comp. Laws 440.2313, et seq.; 16 u. Minn. Stat. § 336.2-313, et seq.; 17 v. Miss. Code § 75-2-313, et seq.; 18 w. Mo. Rev. Stat. § 400.2-313, et seq.; 19 x. Mont. Code § 30-2-313, et seq.; 20 y. Neb. U.C.C. § 2-313, et seq.; 21 z. Nev. Rev. Stat. § 104.2313, et seq.; 22 aa. N.H. Rev. Stat. § 382-A:2-313, et seq.; 23 bb. N.J. Stat. § 12A:2-313, et seq.; 24 cc. N.M. Stat. § 55-2-313, et seq.; 25 dd. N.Y. U.C.C. § 2-313, et seq.; 26 ee. N.C. Gen. Stat. § 25-2-313, et seq.; 27 ff. N.D. Cent. Code § 41-02-30, et seq.; 28 gg. Ohio Rev. Code § 1302.26, et seq.;

Class Action Complaint - 73 - Case 2:21-cv-04030-VAP-JC Document 1 Filed 05/13/21 Page 74 of 115 Page ID #:74

1 hh. Okla. Stat. Tit. 12A, § 2-313, et seq.; 2 ii. R.I. Gen. Laws § 6A-2-313, et seq.; 3 jj. S.C. Code § 36-2-313, et seq.; 4 kk. S.D. Codified Laws § 57A-2-313, et seq.; 5 ll. Tenn. Code § 47-2-313, et seq.; 6 mm. V.T.C.A., Bus. & C. § 2.313, et seq.; 7 nn. Utah Code § 70A-2-313, et seq.; 8 oo. Vt. Stat. Tit. 9A, § 2-313, et seq.; 9 pp. W. Va. Code § 46-2-313, et seq.; 10 qq. Wis. Stat. § 402.313, et seq.; and 11 rr. Wyo. Stat. § 34.1-2-313, et seq. 12 272. Honda expressly warranted that it would cover the cost of all parts and 13 labor to repair any item on the vehicle when it left the manufacturing plant that is 14 defective in material or workmanship. 15 273. Further, Honda advertised the Class vehicles as “safe” and “pushing 16 the boundaries of automotive engineering” while failing to disclose to Plaintiffs and 17 Class Members any hint of the risks the AC System Defect poses, which renders 18 Class Vehicles dangerous and unreliable. This omission was material to the 19 Plaintiffs and Class Members. 20 274. Honda materially breached its express warranties by selling and 21 leasing Class Vehicles that suffer from the AC System Defect, which rendered the 22 Class Vehicles unsafe or unfit for use as warranted. Thus, at the point of sale, the 23 written warranties were breached by Honda as the Class Vehicles were unsafe and 24 contained an inherent design defect. 25 275. Honda breached the express warranty because it did not promptly 26 replace, repair, or buy back the Class Vehicle of Plaintiffs and the other Class 27 Members. 28 276. Honda was put on notice of the breach by Class Member’s online

Class Action Complaint - 74 - Case 2:21-cv-04030-VAP-JC Document 1 Filed 05/13/21 Page 75 of 115 Page ID #:75

1 complaints available on NHSTA and other online public websites, and by, inter 2 alia, notification of the AC System Defect directly by its authorized dealerships and 3 service centers as the July 2016 TSB demonstrates 4 277. Plaintiffs notified Honda of its breach within a reasonable time, and/or 5 were not required to do so because affording Honda a reasonable opportunity to cure 6 a breach of its written warranty would have been futile. Honda also knew of the 7 Defect and yet chose to conceal it and refuse to comply with its warranty obligations. 8 278. In addition, Honda’s express warranty has failed its essential purpose 9 due to (1) the AC System Defect not being covered under either the Powertrain or 10 Limited warranties that accompanied each Class Vehicle, (2) the months-long wait 11 for replacement parts many Class Members have had to endure due to the Defect’s 12 pervasiveness, and (3) because Honda’s in-warranty “fixes” have proven 13 ineffective. Specifically, due to a defect in materials, workmanship and/or design, 14 Class vehicle AC Systems are prone to fail during ordinary and foreseeable use and 15 conditions, even when Honda replaces failed components with OEM replacement 16 parts. 17 279. Plaintiffs have complied with the warranty terms. Honda, after notice 18 of the problems, has failed to comply with the warranty terms. 19 280. Any attempt by Honda to limit or disclaim the express warranties in a 20 manner that would exclude coverage of the Defect also is procedurally and 21 substantively unconscionable and thus fail under U.C.C. § 2-302, as adopted by the 22 states listed in this Count. Honda knew or should have known about the Defect in 23 the Class Vehicles prior to selling Class Vehicles while continuing to market Class 24 Vehicles as safe and reliable, had unequal bargaining power and misrepresented the 25 Class Vehicles’ reliability, and limited remedies unreasonably favors Honda and fail 26 Plaintiffs reasonable expectations for product performance. 27 281. As a result of Honda’s breach of its express warranties, Plaintiffs and 28 the other Class Members received goods in a sub-standard and unsafe condition that

Class Action Complaint - 75 - Case 2:21-cv-04030-VAP-JC Document 1 Filed 05/13/21 Page 76 of 115 Page ID #:76

1 substantially impairs their value to Plaintiffs and the other Class Members. 2 Plaintiffs and the other Class Members have been damaged as a result of the 3 diminished value of the Class Vehicles and the inability to safely use their Class 4 Vehicles. 5 282. Plaintiffs and Class Members are entitled to recover all damages as a 6 result of said breach of warranties in an amount in excess of $5,000,000.00. 7 SECOND CLAIM FOR RELIEF 8 Breach of Implied Warranties 9 (On behalf of the residents of the following States) 283. Plaintiffs bring their claims under the laws of their own States as 10 codified below: 11 a. Cal. Com. Code §§ 2314-2315, et seq., and Cal. Civ. Code § 1790, 12 et seq.; 13 b. Ore. Rev. Stat. §§ 72.3140, 72.3150 and 72.3180, et seq.; and 14 c. Wash. Rev. Code §§ 62A.2-314 and 62A.2-315, et seq. 15 284. Plaintiffs also bring claims on behalf of the Class under the laws of the 16 following States as codified below: 17 a. Ala. Code §§ 7-2-314, 7-2-315 and 7-2-318, et seq.; 18 b. Ariz. Rev. Stat. Ann. §§ 47-2314, 47-2315 and 47-2318, et seq.; 19 c. Ga. Code Ann. §§ 11-2-314, 11-2-315 and 11-2-318, et seq.; 20 d. Idaho Code Ann. §§ 28:2-314, 28:2-315 and 28:2-318, et seq.; 21 e. 810 Ill. Comp. Stat. 5/2-314, 5/2-315 and 5/2-318, et seq.; 22 f. Iowa Code §§ 554.2314, 554.2315 and 554.2318, et seq.; 23 g. Ky. Rev. Stat. Ann. §§ 355.2-314, 355.2-315 and 355.2-318, et seq.; 24 h. N.Y. U.C.C. Law §§ 2-314, 2-315 and 2-318, et seq.; 25 i. N.C. Gen. Stat. §§ 25-2-314, 25-2-315 and 25-2-318, et seq.; 26 j. Tenn. Code Ann. §§ 47-2-314, 47-2-315 and 47-2-318, et seq.; and 27 k. Wis. Stat. §§ 402.314, 402.315 and 402.318, et seq. 28

Class Action Complaint - 76 - Case 2:21-cv-04030-VAP-JC Document 1 Filed 05/13/21 Page 77 of 115 Page ID #:77

1 285. Honda is a manufacturer and seller, as it designed, assembled, 2 fabricated, produced, constructed, and prepared the Class Vehicles before they were 3 sold. Honda is a seller because it was a manufacturer, wholesaler, and distributor 4 engaged in the business of selling a product for resale or use, with actual knowledge 5 of the AC System Defect. 6 286. Honda impliedly warranted that the Class Vehicles, which it designed, 7 manufactured, and sold or leased to Plaintiffs and Class Members, were 8 merchantable, fit, and safe for their ordinary use, not otherwise injurious to 9 consumers. Honda warranted that the Class Vehicles’ primary components, 10 including the air conditioning system, would operate properly. 11 287. Honda did not effectively disclaim these implied warranties. 12 288. The Class Vehicles sold by Honda were defective at the time of their 13 sale. Honda breached its implied warranty of merchantability, in that, the Class 14 Vehicles were not merchantable because they cannot be driven safely under all 15 reasonably expected weather conditions and thus are not reliable for safe 16 transportation. The Class Vehicles’ AC System suffered from the Defect described 17 herein, such that their environmental controls, including the system’s ability to 18 defog windshields, repeatedly failed to function properly, sometimes beginning 19 early on in the vehicles’ expected useful life. 20 289. Honda, through its agent dealerships, sold Class Vehicles to Plaintiffs. 21 290. Plaintiffs were each persons Honda reasonably might have expected to 22 purchase and use a Class Vehicle. 23 291. Plaintiffs relied upon Honda’s implied warranties that the Class 24 Vehicles they purchased were of merchantable quality and fit for their intended 25 purposes. The AC System Defect rendered its AC Systems useless, caused their 26 Class Vehicles to be unreasonably dangerous in certain weather conditions, and 27 posed an unreasonable risk of damage to other expensive components of the Class 28 Vehicles’ AC System.

Class Action Complaint - 77 - Case 2:21-cv-04030-VAP-JC Document 1 Filed 05/13/21 Page 78 of 115 Page ID #:78

1 292. Honda placed the Class Vehicles in the stream of commerce and 2 expected them to reach consumers without substantial change in the condition in 3 which they were sold. Indeed, Class Vehicles reached Plaintiffs—persons that 4 would reasonably be expected to use, consume, or be affected by the performance 5 of a Class Vehicle—without substantial change in the condition in which they were 6 sold. 7 293. The Class Vehicles are defective in materials, workmanship and/or 8 design, as outlined throughout this Complaint. Despite knowledge of the AC 9 System Defect, Honda failed to warn consumers about the defect before or after the 10 sale of the Class Vehicles. 11 294. In situations such as Plaintiffs’—where the driver used the Class 12 Vehicle as intended and in a foreseeable and reasonable manner—the AC System 13 should not fail. 14 295. Nevertheless, Plaintiffs’ Class Vehicles AC Systems did fail, and they 15 did so because of the Defect that existed in the Class Vehicles at the time they left 16 the manufacturer’s control. 17 296. Honda knew or should have known of the Defect in Class Vehicles and 18 that, as a result, they were unfit for their intended and foreseeable purpose. 19 297. Honda did not warn or alert purchasers or users of the foregoing 20 Defect, despite its knowledge of it. 21 298. As a direct and proximate result of the Defect in the Class Vehicles, 22 Plaintiffs have sustained injuries, damages, and losses. 23 299. Any attempt by Honda to limit or disclaim the express warranties in a 24 manner that would exclude coverage of the Defect also is procedurally and 25 substantively unconscionable and thus fail under U.C.C. § 2-302, as adopted by the 26 states listed in this Count. Honda knew or should have known about the Defect in 27 the Class Vehicles prior to selling Class Vehicles while continuing to market Class 28 Vehicles as safe and reliable, had unequal bargaining power and misrepresented the

Class Action Complaint - 78 - Case 2:21-cv-04030-VAP-JC Document 1 Filed 05/13/21 Page 79 of 115 Page ID #:79

1 Class Vehicles’ reliability, and limited remedies unreasonably favors Honda and fail 2 Plaintiffs reasonable expectations for product performance. 3 300. Honda was and is in privity with each of the Plaintiffs and class 4 members by law and/or by fact. First, Plaintiffs have had sufficient direct dealings 5 with Honda and/or its authorized dealers, franchisees, representatives, and agents to 6 establish privity of contract. Alternatively, Plaintiffs and class members are intended 7 third-party beneficiaries of contracts, including express warranties, between Honda 8 and its dealers, franchisees, representatives and agents; Honda’s advertisements 9 were aimed at Plaintiffs and class members, and Honda’s warranties were expressly 10 written for the benefit of Plaintiffs and class members as end users of the Class 11 Vehicles. Honda’s authorized dealers, franchisees, representatives, and agents, on 12 the other hand, were not intended to be the ultimate consumers of the Class Vehicles 13 and have no rights under the warranty agreements provided by Honda; these 14 intermediary entities made no changes to Honda’s Class Vehicles product, nor made 15 any additions to the warranties issued by Honda. Further, Honda is estopped from 16 limiting claims for common law and statutory violations based on a defense of lack 17 of privity. 18 301. As a direct and proximate result of the breaches of these implied 19 warranties Plaintiffs have suffered damages, injury in fact and ascertainable loss in 20 an amount to be determined at trial, including repair and replacement costs and 21 damages to other property. 22 302. Honda is liable to Plaintiffs and Class Members for damages caused 23 by the above Defect. 24 303. Plaintiffs demand judgment against Honda for compensatory damages 25 for themselves and each class member, for the establishment of a common fund, 26 plus additional remedies as this Court deems fit. 27 28

Class Action Complaint - 79 - Case 2:21-cv-04030-VAP-JC Document 1 Filed 05/13/21 Page 80 of 115 Page ID #:80

1 THIRD CLAIM FOR RELIEF 2 Breach of Implied Warranties (On behalf of the residents of the following States: Alaska; Arkansas; 3 Colorado; Connecticut; Delaware; District of Columbia; Florida; Hawaii; 4 Indiana; Kansas; Louisiana; Maine; Maryland; Massachusetts; Michigan; Minnesota; Mississippi; Missouri; Montana; Nebraska; Nevada; New 5 Hampshire; New Jersey; New Mexico; North Dakota; Ohio; Oklahoma; 6 Pennsylvania; Rhode Island; South Carolina; South Dakota; Texas; Utah; 7 Vermont; Virginia; West Virginia; Wyoming) 304. Plaintiffs incorporate by reference the allegations contained in the 8 preceding paragraphs of this Complaint. 9 305. Plaintiffs bring this claim individually and on behalf of the residents 10 of Alaska, Arkansas, Colorado, Connecticut, Delaware, District of Columbia, 11 Florida, Hawaii, Indiana, Kansas, Louisiana, Maine, Maryland, Massachusetts, 12 Michigan, Minnesota, Mississippi, Missouri, Montana, Nebraska, Nevada, New 13 Hampshire, New Jersey, New Mexico, North Dakota, Ohio, Oklahoma, 14 Pennsylvania, Rhode Island, South Carolina, South Dakota, Texas, Utah, Vermont, 15 Virginia, West Virginia, and Wyoming against Honda. 16 306. Each Plaintiff brings their claim under the laws of their own State, as 17 codified below: 18 a. Conn. Gen. Stat. §§ 42a-2-314 and 42a-2-315, et seq.; 19 b. Fla. Stat. Ann. §§ 672.314 and 672.315, et seq.; 20 c. 13 Pa. Stat. Ann. §§ 2314 and 2315, et seq.; and 21 d. Va. Code Ann. §§ 8.2-314 and 8.2-315, et seq. 22 307. Plaintiffs also bring claims on behalf of the Class under the laws of the 23 following States as codified below: 24 a. Alaska Stat. §§ 45.02.314 and 45.02.315, et seq.; 25 b. Ark. Code Ann. §§ 4-2-314 and 4-2-315, et seq.; 26 c. Colo. Rev. Stat. Ann. §§ 4-2-314 and 4-2-315, et seq.; 27 d. Del. Code Ann. Tit. 6, §§ 2-314 and 2-315, et seq.; 28

Class Action Complaint - 80 - Case 2:21-cv-04030-VAP-JC Document 1 Filed 05/13/21 Page 81 of 115 Page ID #:81

1 e. D.C. Code §§ 28:2-314 and 28:2-315, et seq.; 2 f. Haw. Rev. Stat. §§ 490:2-314 and 490:2-315, et seq.; 3 g. Ind. Code §§ 26-1-2-314 and 26-1-315, et seq.; 4 h. Kan. Stat. Ann. §§ 84-2-314 and 84-2-315, et seq.; 5 i. La. Civ. Code Ann. Art. 2520, et seq.; 6 j. Md. Code Ann., Com. Law §§ 2-314 and 2-315, et seq.; 7 k. Me. Rev. Stat. Ann. Tit. 11, §§ 2-314 and 2-315, et seq.; 8 l. Mass. Gen. Laws ch. 106, §§ 2-314 and 2-315, et seq.; 9 m. Mich. Comp. Laws Ann. §§ 440.2314 and 440.2315, et seq.; 10 n. Minn. Stat. §§ 336.2-314 and 336.2-315, et seq.; 11 o. Miss. Code Ann. §§ 75-2-314 and 75-2-315, et seq.; 12 p. Mo. Rev. Stat. §§ 400.2-314 and 400.2-315, et seq.; 13 q. Mont. Code Ann. §§ 30-2-314 and 30-2-315, et seq.; 14 r. Neb. Rev. Stat. Ann. §§ 2-314 and 2-315, et seq.; 15 s. Nev. Rev. Stat. §§ 104.2314 and 104.2315, et seq.; 16 t. N.H. Rev. Stat. Ann. §§ 382-A:2-314 and 382-A:2-315, et seq.; 17 u. N.J. Stat. Ann. §§ 12A:2-314 and 12A-315, et seq.; 18 v. N.M. Stat. Ann. §§ 55-2-314 and 55-2-315, et seq.; 19 w. N.D. Cent. Code §§ 41-02-31 and 41-02-32, et seq.; 20 x. Ohio Rev. Code Ann. §§ 1302.27 and 1302.28, et seq.; 21 y. Okla. Stat. Tit. 12A, §§ 2-314 and 2-315, et seq.; 22 z. R.I. Gen. Laws §§ 6A-2-314 and 6A-2-315, et seq.; 23 aa. S.C. Code Ann. §§ 36-2-314 and 36-2-315, et seq.; 24 bb. S.D. Codified Laws §§ 57A-2-314 and 57A-2-315, et seq.; 25 cc. Tex. Bus. & Com. Code Ann. §§ 2.314 and 2.315, et seq.; 26 dd. Utah Code Ann. §§ 70A-2-314 and 70A-2-315, et seq.; 27 ee. Vt. Stat. Ann. Tit. 9A, §§ 2-314 and 2-315, et seq.; 28 ff. W. Va. Code §§ 46-2-314 and 46-2-315, et seq.; and

Class Action Complaint - 81 - Case 2:21-cv-04030-VAP-JC Document 1 Filed 05/13/21 Page 82 of 115 Page ID #:82

1 gg. Wyo. Stat. Ann. §§ 34.1-2-314 and 34.1-2-315, et seq. 2 308. Honda is a manufacturer and seller, as it designed, assembled, 3 fabricated, produced, constructed, and prepared the Class Vehicles before they were 4 sold. Honda is a seller because it was a manufacturer, wholesaler, and distributor 5 engaged in the business of selling a product for resale or use, with actual knowledge 6 of the AC System Defect. 7 309. Honda impliedly warranted that the Class Vehicles, which it designed, 8 manufactured, and sold or leased to Plaintiffs and Class Members, were 9 merchantable, fit, and safe for their ordinary use, not otherwise injurious to 10 consumers. Honda warranted that the Class Vehicles’ primary components, 11 including the air conditioning system, would operate properly. 12 310. Honda did not effectively disclaim these implied warranties. 13 311. The Class Vehicles sold by Honda were defective at the time of their 14 sale. Honda breached its implied warranty of merchantability, in that, the Class 15 Vehicles were not merchantable because they cannot be driven safely under all 16 reasonably expected weather conditions and thus are not reliable for safe 17 transportation. The Class Vehicles’ AC System suffered from the Defect described 18 herein, such that their environmental controls, including the system’s ability to 19 defog windshields, repeatedly failed to function properly, sometimes beginning 20 early on in the vehicles’ expected useful life. 21 312. Honda, through its agent dealerships, sold Class Vehicles to Plaintiffs. 22 313. Plaintiffs were each persons Honda reasonably might have expected to 23 purchase and use a Class Vehicle. 24 314. Plaintiffs relied upon Honda’s implied warranties that the Class 25 Vehicles they purchased were of merchantable quality and fit for their intended 26 purposes. The AC System Defect rendered its AC Systems useless, caused their 27 Class Vehicles to be unreasonably dangerous in certain weather conditions, and 28 posed an unreasonable risk of damage to other expensive components of the Class

Class Action Complaint - 82 - Case 2:21-cv-04030-VAP-JC Document 1 Filed 05/13/21 Page 83 of 115 Page ID #:83

1 Vehicles’ AC System. 2 315. Honda placed the Class Vehicles in the stream of commerce and 3 expected them to reach consumers without substantial change in the condition in 4 which they were sold. Indeed, Class Vehicles reached Plaintiffs—persons that 5 would reasonably be expected to use, consume, or be affected by the performance 6 of a Class Vehicle—without substantial change in the condition in which they were 7 sold. 8 316. The Class Vehicles are defective in materials, workmanship and/or 9 design, as outlined throughout this Complaint. Despite knowledge of the AC 10 System Defect, Honda failed to warn consumers about the defect before or after the 11 sale of the Class Vehicles. 12 317. In situations such as Plaintiffs’—where the driver used the Class 13 Vehicle as intended and in a foreseeable and reasonable manner—the AC System 14 should not fail. 15 318. Nevertheless, Plaintiffs’ Class Vehicles AC Systems did fail, and they 16 did so because of the Defect that existed in the Class Vehicles at the time they left 17 the manufacturer’s control. 18 319. Honda knew or should have known of the Defect in Class Vehicles and 19 that, as a result, they were unfit for their intended and foreseeable purpose. 20 320. Honda did not warn or alert purchasers or users of the foregoing 21 Defect, despite its knowledge of it. 22 321. As a direct and proximate result of the Defect in the Class Vehicles, 23 Plaintiffs have sustained injuries, damages, and losses. 24 322. Any attempt by Honda to limit or disclaim the express warranties in a 25 manner that would exclude coverage of the Defect also is procedurally and 26 substantively unconscionable and thus fail under U.C.C. § 2-302, as adopted by the 27 states listed in this Count. Honda knew or should have known about the Defect in 28 the Class Vehicles prior to selling Class Vehicles while continuing to market Class

Class Action Complaint - 83 - Case 2:21-cv-04030-VAP-JC Document 1 Filed 05/13/21 Page 84 of 115 Page ID #:84

1 Vehicles as safe and reliable, had unequal bargaining power and misrepresented the 2 Class Vehicles’ reliability, and limited remedies unreasonably favors Honda and fail 3 Plaintiffs reasonable expectations for product performance. 4 323. Actual and/or constructive notice was duly given to Honda of the 5 breaches of these warranties, and Honda has yet failed to cure. 6 324. As a direct and proximate result of the breaches of these implied 7 warranties Plaintiffs have suffered damages, injury in fact and ascertainable loss in 8 an amount to be determined at trial, including repair and replacement costs and 9 damages to other property. 10 325. Honda is liable to Plaintiffs and Class Members for damages caused 11 by the above Defect. 12 326. Plaintiffs demand judgment against Honda for compensatory damages 13 for themselves and each class member, for the establishment of a common fund, 14 plus additional remedies as this Court deems fit. 15 16 FOURTH CLAIM FOR RELIEF Violation of the California Unfair Competition Law 17 Cal. Bus. & Prof. Code § 17200, et seq. 18 (On behalf of the National Class and California Subclass) 327. Plaintiffs incorporate by reference the allegations contained in the 19 preceding paragraphs of this Complaint. 20 328. Plaintiffs bring this claim individually and on behalf of the National 21 Class and the California Subclass against Honda. 22 329. Both AHM and HNA have their principal place of business in this 23 District, and specifically in Torrance, California. 24 330. Upon information and belief, Torrance, the principal place of business 25 for both AHM and HNA, is the location where the decisions regarding marketing, 26 advertising, and other promotional literature are made, as well as the location of 27 product development and other misconduct alleged in this Complaint occurred. 28

Class Action Complaint - 84 - Case 2:21-cv-04030-VAP-JC Document 1 Filed 05/13/21 Page 85 of 115 Page ID #:85

1 331. Since both Defendants are headquartered in California and their 2 misconduct allegedly originated in California, and each has such significant 3 contacts between California and the claims asserted by the National Class, 4 application of California UCL would not be arbitrary or unfair to defendants. 5 332. California Business & Professions Code § 17200, et seq. (“UCL”) 6 prohibits acts of “unfair competition,” including any “unlawful, unfair or fraudulent 7 business act or practice” and “unfair, deceptive, untrue or misleading advertising.” 8 333. Honda engaged in unlawful, unfair, and/or fraudulent conduct under 9 California Business & Professional Code § 17200, et seq. 10 334. Honda’s conduct is unlawful in that it violates state express and 11 implied warranty laws as set forth in the first and second causes of action; violates 12 the Consumer Legal Remedies Act, Cal. Civil Code § 1750 et seq. as set forth in 13 the fifth cause of action; violates the Song-Beverly Warranty Act, California Civil 14 Code §§ 1792 and 1791.1, et seq. as set forth in the sixth and seventh causes of 15 action; and violates the consumer protection laws of Plaintiffs’ home states as 16 further alleged herein. 17 335. Honda’s conduct is unfair under the UCL in that it offends established 18 public policy and/or is immoral, unethical, oppressive, unscrupulous and/or 19 substantially injurious to Plaintiffs and Class members. The harm to Plaintiffs and 20 Class members arising from Defendant’s conduct outweighs any legitimate benefit 21 Defendant derived from the conduct. Its actions were unfair in that: 22 a. Honda advertised the Class Vehicles as “safe” and “pushing the 23 boundaries of automotive engineering” while failing to disclose to 24 Plaintiffs and Class Members any hint of the risks posed by the Defect, 25 which renders the vehicles dangerously unreliable. 26 b. Honda knew the Class Vehicles suffered from inherent defects, were 27 defective in materials, workmanship and/or design, would fail to 28 operate as intended, and were not suitable for their intended use.

Class Action Complaint - 85 - Case 2:21-cv-04030-VAP-JC Document 1 Filed 05/13/21 Page 86 of 115 Page ID #:86

1 c. In failing to disclose the Defect, Honda knowingly and intentionally 2 concealed material facts and breached its duty not to do so. 3 336. Honda’s actions and practices constitute “fraudulent” business 4 practices in violation of the UCL because, among other things, their practices are 5 likely to and did in fact deceive reasonable consumers. 6 a. Honda advertised the Class Vehicles as “safe” and “pushing the 7 boundaries of automotive engineering” while failing to disclose to 8 Plaintiffs and Class Members any hint of the risks posed by the Defect, 9 which renders the vehicles dangerously unreliable. 10 b. Honda knew the Class Vehicles suffered from inherent defects, were 11 defective in materials, workmanship and/or design, would fail to 12 operate as intended, and were not suitable for their intended use. 13 c. In failing to disclose the Defect, Honda knowingly and intentionally 14 concealed material facts and breached its duty not to do so. 15 337. Plaintiffs and Class Members are reasonable consumers who do not 16 expect their Class Vehicles’ air conditioning system to fail prematurely, exposing 17 them to unreasonable safety risks and expense. 18 338. By its conduct, Honda has engaged in unfair competition and unlawful, 19 unfair, and fraudulent business practices. 20 339. Honda had a duty to Plaintiffs and Class Members to disclose the 21 defective nature of the Class Vehicles because: 22 a. Honda was in a superior position to know the true facts about the 23 Class Vehicles’ safety defect; 24 b. Honda made partial disclosures about the quality of the Class 25 Vehicles without revealing the defective nature of the Class 26 Vehicles; and 27 c. Honda actively concealed the defective nature of the Class Vehicles 28 from Plaintiffs and Class Members and continues to

Class Action Complaint - 86 - Case 2:21-cv-04030-VAP-JC Document 1 Filed 05/13/21 Page 87 of 115 Page ID #:87

1 conceal the defective nature of the Class 2 Vehicles, even after Class Members have 3 reported problems. 4 340. The facts regarding the Defect that Honda concealed from or failed to 5 disclose to Plaintiffs and Class are material in that a reasonable person would have 6 considered them to be important in deciding whether to purchase or lease Class 7 Vehicles. Had Plaintiffs and Class Members known that the Class Vehicles were 8 defective and posed a safety hazard, they would not have purchased or leased Class 9 Vehicles, or would have paid less for them. 10 341. Honda’s conduct was and is likely to deceive consumers. Honda’s 11 unfair or deceptive acts or practices occurred repeatedly in Honda’s trade or 12 business and were capable of deceiving a substantial portion of the purchasing 13 public. 14 342. As a result of their reliance on Honda’s omissions and/or 15 misrepresentations, owners and/or lessees of the Class Vehicles suffered an 16 ascertainable loss of money, property, and/or value of their Class Vehicles. 17 Additionally, as a result of the Defect, Plaintiffs and Class Members were harmed 18 and suffered actual damages in that the Class Vehicles are worth less than they 19 would be if they did not have the AC System Defect. 20 343. As a direct and proximate result of Honda’s unfair and deceptive 21 practices, Plaintiffs and Class Members have suffered and will continue to suffer 22 actual damages. 23 344. Honda has been unjustly enriched and should be required to make 24 restitution to Plaintiffs and the Class pursuant to §§ 17203 and 17204 of the 25 California Business & Professions Code. 26 345. Plaintiffs and the Class seek all remedies available pursuant to § 27 17070, et seq. of the California Business & Professions Code, including full 28 restitutionary damages allowable by law, the diminished value of the Class

Class Action Complaint - 87 - Case 2:21-cv-04030-VAP-JC Document 1 Filed 05/13/21 Page 88 of 115 Page ID #:88

1 Vehicles, the repair or replacement of all Class Vehicles, the refund of money paid 2 to own or lease all Class Vehicles, and appropriate equitable relief including 3 injunctive relief, restitution, a declaratory judgment, a court order enjoining 4 Honda’s wrongful acts and practices, and any other relief to which Plaintiffs and 5 the Class may be entitled, including attorneys’ fees and costs.

6 FIFTH CLAIM FOR RELIEF 7 Violation of Consumer Legal Remedies Act – Civil Code § 1750, et seq. (On behalf of the California Subclass) 8 346. Plaintiffs incorporate by reference the allegations contained in the 9 preceding paragraphs of this Complaint. 10 347. Plaintiffs bring this claim individually and on behalf of the California 11 Subclass of California residents who formerly or currently own or lease one or more 12 of the Vehicles. 13 348. This cause of action is brought pursuant to the Consumers Legal 14 Remedies Act, California Civil Code § 1750, et seq. (the “CLRA”) because Honda’s 15 actions and conduct described herein constitute transactions that have resulted in 16 the sale or lease of goods or services to consumers. 17 349. Plaintiffs and each member of the Class are consumers as defined by 18 California Civil Code §1761(d). Honda intended to sell the Vehicles. 19 350. The Vehicles are goods within the meaning of Civil Code §1761(a). 20 351. Honda violated the CLRA in at least the following respects: 21 a. in violation of §1770(a)(5), Defendant represented that the 22 Vehicles have approval, characteristics, and uses or benefits which 23 they do not have (because they are defective); 24 b. in violation of §1770(a)(7), Defendant represented that the 25 Vehicles are of a particular standard, quality or grade, when they 26 are of another (having a design defect or manufacturing defect or 27 both); 28

Class Action Complaint - 88 - Case 2:21-cv-04030-VAP-JC Document 1 Filed 05/13/21 Page 89 of 115 Page ID #:89

1 c. in violation of Section 1770(a)(9), Defendant have advertised the 2 Vehicles as safe with the intent not to sell them as advertised (with 3 AC System Defect); and 4 d. in violation of §1770(a)(16), Defendant represented that the 5 Vehicles have been supplied in accordance with previous 6 representations (being free of design or manufacturing defects), 7 when they were not. 8 352. Honda violated the Act by representing the Vehicles were safe and free 9 of defects when they were not. Honda knew, or should have known, that the 10 representations and advertisements were false and misleading. 11 353. Honda’s acts and omissions constitute unfair, deceptive, and 12 misleading business practices in violation of Civil Code §1770(a). 13 354. Under California Civil Code section 1780(a), Plaintiff and members of 14 the Class seek injunctive and equitable relief for Honda’s violations of the CLRA. 15 Plaintiff and the Class reserve the right to amend this Complaint to include a request 16 for damages under the CLRA after complying with California Civil Code 1782(a) 17 after the commencement of this action. 18 SIXTH CLAIM FOR RELIEF 19 Breach of Express Warranty Under the Song-Beverly Consumer Warranty 20 Act, California Civil Code §§ 1792 and 1791.1, et seq. (On behalf of the California Subclass) 21

22 355. Plaintiffs incorporate by reference the allegations contained in the 23 preceding paragraphs of this Complaint. 24 356. Plaintiffs bring this claim individually and on behalf of the California 25 Subclass against Honda. 26 357. Plaintiffs and Class Members are “buyers” within the meaning of the 27 Song-Beverly Consumer Warranty Act, California Civil Code § 1791(a). 28

Class Action Complaint - 89 - Case 2:21-cv-04030-VAP-JC Document 1 Filed 05/13/21 Page 90 of 115 Page ID #:90

1 358. Honda is a “manufacturer” within the meaning of the Song-Beverly 2 Consumer Warranty Act, California Civil Code § 1791(j). 3 359. The Class Vehicles at issue are “consumer goods” within the meaning 4 of the Song-Beverly Consumer Warranty Act, California Civil Code § 1791(a). 5 360. The Powertrain Warranty and Limited Warranty are “express 6 warranties” within the meaning of the Song-Beverly Consumer Warranty Act, 7 California Civil Code § 1791.2. 8 361. Honda provided these warranties to Plaintiffs and California Subclass 9 members. 10 362. However, Honda knew or should have known that the warranties were 11 false and/or misleading. 12 363. Honda breached these warranties as described in more detail above. 13 Without limitation, the Class Vehicles fail to provide air conditioning as warranted, 14 fail to protect the air conditioning systems from foreseeable and usual road debris 15 when the Class Vehicles are subjected to expected and normal use. The Class 16 Vehicles share a common design defect in that the Class Vehicles fail to operate as 17 represented by Honda, specifically, that they are safe for ordinary use. 18 364. Plaintiffs and other Class Members reasonably relied on Honda’s 19 express warranties when purchasing or leasing the Class Vehicles. However, the 20 Class Vehicles did not perform as warranted, unbeknownst to Plaintiffs and other 21 Class Members. Honda breached these warranties by providing a product containing 22 defects that Honda never disclosed to Plaintiffs and other Class Members. 23 365. Affording Honda a reasonable opportunity to cure its breach of written 24 warranties would be unnecessary and futile here. Indeed, Plaintiffs and many others 25 already alerted Honda of the defect, but Honda failed to cure, and even denied, the 26 Defect. At the time of sale or lease of each Class Vehicle, Honda knew, or should 27 have known, or was reckless in not knowing of its misrepresentations and omissions 28 concerning the Class Vehicle’s inability to perform as warranted, but nonetheless

Class Action Complaint - 90 - Case 2:21-cv-04030-VAP-JC Document 1 Filed 05/13/21 Page 91 of 115 Page ID #:91

1 failed to rectify the situation and/or disclose the defective design. Under the 2 circumstances, the remedies available under any informal settlement procedure 3 would be inadequate and any requirement that Plaintiffs resort to an informal dispute 4 resolution procedure and/or afford Honda a reasonable opportunity to cure its breach 5 of warranties is excused and thereby deemed satisfied. 6 366. Honda has breached and continues to breach its written and implied 7 warranties of future performance, thereby damaging Plaintiffs and Class Members, 8 because the Class Vehicles fail to perform as represented due to the undisclosed 9 Defect. Honda failed to fully cover or pay for necessary inspections, repairs and/or 10 vehicle replacements for Plaintiffs and the Class. 11 367. Honda is under a continuing duty to inform its customers of the nature 12 and existence of potential safety related defects in the Class Vehicles. 13 368. Such irreparable harm includes, but is not limited to, likely injuries and 14 crashes as a result of the AC System Defect in the Class Vehicles. 15 369. Plaintiffs and the Class seek full compensatory damages allowable by 16 law, the diminished value of the Class Vehicles, the repair or replacement of all Class 17 Vehicles, the refund of money paid to own or lease all Class Vehicles, and punitive 18 damages, and appropriate equitable relief including injunctive relief, restitution, a 19 declaratory judgment, a court order enjoining Honda’s wrongful acts and practices, 20 and any other relief to which Plaintiffs and the Class may be entitled, including 21 attorneys’ fees and costs. 22 370. In addition, in accordance with Cal. Civ. Code §§ 1793.2 and 1794, 23 Plaintiffs and California Subclass members seek an order enjoining Honda’s unfair 24 and/or deceptive acts or practices, punitive damages, civil penalties, attorneys’ fees 25 and expenses, and any other just and proper relief available under the Song-Beverly 26 Consumer Warranty Act.

27 SEVENTH CLAIM FOR RELIEF 28 Breach of Implied Warranty Under the Song-Beverly Consumer Warranty

Class Action Complaint - 91 - Case 2:21-cv-04030-VAP-JC Document 1 Filed 05/13/21 Page 92 of 115 Page ID #:92

Act, California Civil Code §§ 1792 and 1791.1, et seq. 1 (On behalf of the California Subclass) 2 371. Plaintiffs incorporate by reference the allegations contained in the 3 preceding paragraphs of this Complaint. 4 372. Plaintiffs bring this claim individually and on behalf of the California 5 Subclass against Honda. 6 373. Plaintiffs and Class Members are “buyers” within the meaning of the 7 Song-Beverly Consumer Warranty Act, California Civil Code § 1791(a). 8 374. Honda is a “manufacturer” within the meaning of the Song-Beverly 9 Consumer Warranty Act, California Civil Code § 1791(j). 10 375. The Class Vehicles at issue are “consumer goods” within the meaning 11 of the Song-Beverly Consumer Warranty Act, California Civil Code § 1791(a). 12 376. The Powertrain Warranty and Limited Warranty are “express 13 warranties” within the meaning of the Song-Beverly Consumer Warranty Act, 14 California Civil Code § 1791.2. 15 377. At all relevant times, Honda manufactured, distributed, warranted, 16 and/or sold the Class Vehicles. Honda knew or had reason to know of the specific 17 use for which the Class Vehicles were purchased or leased. 18 378. Honda provided an implied warranty to Plaintiffs and Class Members, 19 which warranted that the Class Vehicles, including the components parts, are 20 merchantable and fit for the ordinary purposes for which they were sold. However, 21 the Class Vehicles suffer from an inherent defect at the time of sale and, thereafter, 22 are not fit for their ordinary purpose of providing reasonably safe and reliable 23 transportation. 24 379. Honda impliedly warranted that the Class Vehicles are of 25 merchantable quality and fit for such use. The implied warranty includes, among 26 other things: (i) a warranty that the Class Vehicles manufactured, supplied, 27 distributed, and/or sold by Honda are safe and reliable for providing transportation; 28

Class Action Complaint - 92 - Case 2:21-cv-04030-VAP-JC Document 1 Filed 05/13/21 Page 93 of 115 Page ID #:93

1 and (ii) a warranty that the Class Vehicles are fit for their intended use. 2 380. Contrary to the applicable implied warranties, the Class Vehicles, at 3 the time of sale and thereafter, were not fit for their ordinary and intended purpose 4 of providing Plaintiffs and Class Members with reliable, durable, and safe 5 transportation. Instead, the Class Vehicles are defective and suffer from Defect(s) 6 that compromise their reliability, durability, and safety. 7 381. As a result of Honda’s breach of the applicable implied warranties, 8 owners and/or lessees of the Class Vehicles have suffered an ascertainable loss of 9 money, property, and/or value of their Class Vehicles. Additionally, as a result of 10 the Defect, Plaintiffs and Class Members were harmed and suffered actual damages 11 in that the Class Vehicles are substantially certain to fail or have failed before their 12 expected useful life has run. The Defect creates a high risk of accidents, injuries, 13 and even death. 14 382. Honda’s actions, as complained of herein, breached the implied 15 warranty that the Class Vehicles were of merchantable quality and fit for such use, 16 in violation of California Civil Code §§ 1792 and 1791.1, et seq. 17 383. Plaintiffs and the Class seek full compensatory damages allowable by 18 law, the diminished value of the Class Vehicles, the repair or replacement of all 19 Class Vehicles, the refund of money paid to own or lease all Class Vehicles, civil 20 penalties, and any other relief to which Plaintiffs and the Class may be entitled, 21 including attorneys’ fees and costs.

22 EIGHTH CLAIM FOR RELIEF 23 Connecticut Unfair Trade Practices Act Conn. Gen. Stat. Title 42, Ch. 735a 24 (On behalf of the Connecticut Subclass) 25 384. Plaintiffs incorporate by reference all allegations of the preceding 26 paragraphs as though fully set forth herein. 27 385. Connecticut Unfair Trade Practices Act (“CUTPA”) prohibits “unfair 28

Class Action Complaint - 93 - Case 2:21-cv-04030-VAP-JC Document 1 Filed 05/13/21 Page 94 of 115 Page ID #:94

1 methods of competition and unfair or deceptive acts or practices in the conduct of 2 any trade or commerce” C.G.S.A. § 42-110b. 3 386. Any person who suffers any ascertainable loss of money or property, 4 real or personal, as a result of the use or employment of a method, act or practice 5 prohibited by CUTPA, may bring an action in the judicial district in which the 6 plaintiff or defendant resides or has his principal place of business or is doing 7 business, to recover actual damages. C.G.S.A. § 42-110g. 8 387. In any action brought by a person pursuant to CUTPA, the court may 9 award, to the plaintiff, in addition to the relief provided in this section, costs and 10 reasonable attorneys’ fees based on the work reasonably performed by an attorney 11 and not on the amount of recovery. In a class action in which there is no monetary 12 recovery, but other relief is granted on behalf of a class, the court may award, to the 13 plaintiff, in addition to other relief provided in this section, costs and reasonable 14 attorneys’ fees. In any action brought pursuant to CUTPA, the court may, in its 15 discretion, order, in addition to damages or in lieu of damages, injunctive or other 16 equitable relief. C.G.S.A. § 42-110g. 17 388. Plaintiffs and the Connecticut Subclass are “persons” as defined by 18 CUTPA. C.G.S.A. § 42- 110a(3). 19 389. Defendants are a “person” as defined by CUTPA. C.G.S.A. § 42- 20 110a(3). 21 390. Plaintiffs and the Connecticut Subclass’ purchase of a Class Vehicle is 22 a “Trade” or “Commerce” as defined by CUTPA. C.G.S.A. § 42-110a(4). 23 391. Defendants are in the business of selling motor vehicles and therefore 24 are bound by CUTPA which prohibits engaging in unfair or deceptive acts in the 25 conduct of any commerce or trade. 26 392. In the course of their business, Defendants knowingly, intentionally 27 and/or willfully failed to disclose and actively concealed the dangerous AC System 28 Defect in the Class Vehicles as described herein and otherwise engaged in activities

Class Action Complaint - 94 - Case 2:21-cv-04030-VAP-JC Document 1 Filed 05/13/21 Page 95 of 115 Page ID #:95

1 with a tendency or capacity to deceive. Defendants also engaged in unlawful trade 2 practices by employing deception, deceptive acts or practices, fraud, 3 misrepresentations, or concealment, suppression or omission of any material fact 4 with intent that others rely upon such concealment, suppression or omission, in 5 connection with the sale of Class Vehicles. Accordingly, Defendants engaged in 6 unfair and deceptive acts or practices. 7 393. Defendants should have disclosed this information because they were 8 in a superior position to know the true facts related to the Defect, and Plaintiffs and 9 the Connecticut Subclass could not reasonably be expected to learn or discover the 10 true facts related to this Defect. Defendants, by the conduct, statements, and 11 omissions described above, also knowingly, intentionally and/or willfully 12 concealed from Plaintiffs and the Connecticut Subclass that the Class Vehicles 13 suffer from the Defect (and the costs, safety risks, and diminished value of the 14 vehicles as a result of this problem). 15 394. These acts and practices have deceived Plaintiffs, the Connecticut 16 Subclass and the public. In failing to disclose the Defect and suppressing material 17 facts from Plaintiffs and the Connecticut Subclass, Defendants breached their duties 18 to disclose these facts, violated CUTPA, and caused injuries to Plaintiffs and the 19 Connecticut Subclass. Defendants’ omissions and acts of concealment pertained to 20 information that was material to Plaintiffs and Connecticut Subclass, as it would 21 have been to all reasonable consumers. 22 395. Defendants’ acts and omissions were likely to mislead a reasonable 23 consumer into purchasing Defendants’ products. Defendants’ deceptive acts are 24 material because they concern an essential feature of the Class Vehicles—the air 25 conditioning system. 26 396. The sale and distribution in Connecticut of Class Vehicles was a 27 consumer-oriented act, and therefore is actionable under CUTPA. 28 397. Plaintiffs and the Connecticut Subclass relied on Defendants’

Class Action Complaint - 95 - Case 2:21-cv-04030-VAP-JC Document 1 Filed 05/13/21 Page 96 of 115 Page ID #:96

1 misrepresentations and omissions; had Plaintiffs and the Connecticut Subclass 2 known Class Vehicles suffered from the Defect, they would not have purchased 3 Class Vehicles and would have avoided the extensive repair costs associated 4 therewith, or would have paid less for their Class Vehicles. Defendants’ conduct 5 thus proximately caused the injuries Plaintiffs and the Connecticut Subclass have 6 suffered and complain of herein. 7 398. At all times, Defendants’ conduct in employing these unfair and 8 deceptive trade practices was malicious, willful, wanton and outrageous. 9 399. Defendants’ actions impact the public interest because Plaintiffs and 10 the Connecticut Subclass were injured in exactly the same way as thousands of 11 others who purchased the Class Vehicles. 12 400. Defendants also have refused to act on grounds generally applicable to 13 Plaintiffs and the Connecticut Subclass, thereby making final injunctive relief 14 appropriate. 15 401. Defendants persist in their deceptive and unfair marketing and sales 16 practices regarding the Class Vehicles to the detriment of consumers across the 17 country, including Plaintiffs and the Connecticut Subclass. 18 402. If Defendants are allowed to continue with these practices, consumers, 19 including Plaintiffs and the Connecticut Subclass, will be irreparably harmed. 20 Plaintiffs and the Connecticut Subclass do not have a plain, adequate, speedy, or 21 complete remedy at law to address all of the wrongs alleged in this Complaint unless 22 injunctive relief is granted to stop Defendants’ deceptive marketing and sale of the 23 Class Vehicles. 24 403. Plaintiffs and the Connecticut Subclass thus are entitled to 25 compensatory damages, equitable and declaratory relief, punitive damages, costs 26 and reasonable attorneys’ fees, as well as injunctive relief requiring Defendants to 27 cease their unfair and deceptive practices relating to the sale of the Class Vehicles. 28

Class Action Complaint - 96 - Case 2:21-cv-04030-VAP-JC Document 1 Filed 05/13/21 Page 97 of 115 Page ID #:97

1 NINTH CAUSE OF ACTION 2 Violation of Florida’s Unfair & Deceptive Trade Practices Act, Fla. Stat. § 501.201, et seq. 3 (On behalf of the Florida Subclass) 4 404. Plaintiffs incorporate by reference the allegations contained in the 5 preceding paragraphs of this complaint. 6 405. Plaintiff Robinson brings this action on behalf of himself and the 7 Florida Subclass against all Defendants. 8 406. The purpose of the Florida Deceptive and Unfair Trade Practices Act 9 (“FDUTPA”) is “to protect the consuming public and legitimate business 10 enterprises from those who engage in unfair methods of competition, or 11 unconscionable, deceptive, or unfair acts or practices in the conduct of any trade or 12 commerce.” Fla. Stat. § 501.202 (2). 13 407. Plaintiff and the Class members are “consumers” within the meaning 14 of Fla. Stat. § 501.203(7). 15 408. Honda engaged in “trade” or “commerce” within the meaning of Fla. 16 Stat. § 501.203(8). 17 409. The Florida Unfair and Deceptive Trade Practices Act (“FUDTPA”) 18 makes unlawful “[u]nfair methods of competition, unconscionable acts or practices, 19 and unfair or deceptive acts or practices in the conduct of any trade or commerce . 20 . .” Fla. Stat. § 501.204(1). In the course of their business, Honda, through their 21 agents, employees, and/or subsidiaries, violated the FUDTPA as detailed above. 22 Specifically, in manufacturing, selling, and designing the Class Vehicles, and in 23 marketing, offering for sale, and selling the defective Class Vehicles, Defendants 24 engaged in unfair or deceptive acts or practices prohibited by Fla. Stat. § 25 501.204(1), including, but not limited to: 26 a. causing likelihood of confusion or of misunderstanding as to the 27 approval or certification of the Class Vehicles; 28

Class Action Complaint - 97 - Case 2:21-cv-04030-VAP-JC Document 1 Filed 05/13/21 Page 98 of 115 Page ID #:98

1 b. representing that the Class Vehicles have approval, characteristics, 2 uses, or benefits that they do not have; 3 c. representing that the Class Vehicles are of a particular standard, quality, 4 and grade when they are not; 5 d. advertising the Class Vehicles with the intent not to sell or lease them 6 as advertised; 7 e. engaging in other conduct which created a likelihood of confusion or 8 of misunderstanding; and 9 f. using or employing deception, fraud, false pretense, false promise or 10 misrepresentation, or the concealment, suppression or omission of a 11 material fact with intent that others rely upon such concealment, 12 suppression or omission, in connection with the advertisement and sale 13 or lease of the Class Vehicles, whether or not any person has in fact 14 been misled, deceived or damaged thereby. 15 410. Honda’s scheme and concealment of the true characteristics of the AC 16 System Defect were material to Plaintiff and the Class, as Honda intended. Had they 17 known the truth, Plaintiff and the Florida Subclass would not have purchased or 18 leased the Class Vehicles, or—if the Class Vehicles’ true nature had been disclosed 19 and mitigated, and the Vehicles rendered legal to sell—would have paid 20 significantly less for them. 21 411. Plaintiff and Florida Subclass members had no way of discerning that 22 Honda’s representations were false and misleading, or otherwise learning the facts 23 that Honda had concealed or failed to disclose, because Honda had exclusive 24 knowledge of the information surrounding the AC System Defect and did not alert 25 Plaintiff and Class Members to said information prior to their purchase of their 26 Class Vehicles. Plaintiff and Class members did not, and could not, unravel Honda’s 27 deception on their own. 28 412. Plaintiff and the Florida Subclass relied on Honda’s

Class Action Complaint - 98 - Case 2:21-cv-04030-VAP-JC Document 1 Filed 05/13/21 Page 99 of 115 Page ID #:99

1 misrepresentations and omissions. Had Plaintiff and the Florida Subclass known 2 Class Vehicles suffered from the Defect, they would not have purchased Class 3 Vehicles and would have avoided the extensive repair costs associated with the AC 4 System Defect, or would have paid less for their Class Vehicles. 5 413. Honda had an ongoing duty to Plaintiff and the Florida Subclass to 6 refrain from unfair and deceptive practices under the FUDTPA in the course of their 7 business. Specifically, Honda owed Plaintiff and the Florida Subclass Members a 8 duty to disclose all the material facts concerning the AC System Defect because 9 they possessed exclusive knowledge, they intentionally concealed it from Plaintiff 10 and the Class Members, and/or they made misrepresentations that were rendered 11 misleading because they were contradicted by withheld facts. 12 414. Plaintiff and Florida Subclass members suffered ascertainable loss and 13 actual damages as a direct and proximate result of Honda’s concealment, 14 misrepresentations, and/or failure to disclose material information. 15 415. Honda’s violations present a continuing risk to Plaintiff and the Florida 16 Subclass Members, as well as to the general public. Honda’s unlawful acts and 17 practices complained of herein affect the public interest. 18 416. Pursuant to Fla. Stat. §§ 501.2105(1)-(2), Plaintiff and the Florida 19 Subclass Members seek an order enjoining Honda’s unfair and/or deceptive acts or 20 practices, and awarding damages and any other just and proper relief available 21 under the FUDTPA. 22 417. Pursuant to Florida Statutes section 501.211(2), Plaintiffs request that 23 the Court grant attorneys’ fees and costs. TENTH CLAIM FOR RELIEF 24 Oregon Unlawful Trade Practices Act 25 Or. Rev. Stat. §§ 646.605, et seq. (On behalf of the Oregon Subclass) 26 418. Plaintiffs incorporate by reference all allegations of the preceding 27 paragraphs as though fully set forth herein. The Oregon Unlawful Trade Practices 28

Class Action Complaint - 99 - Case 2:21-cv-04030-VAP-JC Document 1 Filed 05/13/21 Page 100 of 115 Page ID #:100

1 Act (“UTPA”) broadly prohibits “unfair or deceptive conduct in trade or 2 commerce.” Or. Rev. Stat. § 646.608(u). 3 419. Plaintiffs and the Oregon Subclass are “person[s]” pursuant to UTPA. 4 Or. Rev. Stat. § 646.605. 5 420. Defendants engaged in “trade” or “commerce” pursuant to UTPA. Or. 6 Rev. Stat. § 646.605. 172. 7 421. In the course of their business, Defendants knowingly, intentionally 8 and/or willfully failed to disclose and actively concealed the dangerous AC System 9 Defect in the Class Vehicles as described herein and otherwise engaged in activities 10 with a tendency or capacity to deceive. Defendants also engaged in unlawful trade 11 practices by employing deception, deceptive acts or practices, fraud, 12 misrepresentations, or concealment, suppression or omission of any material fact 13 with intent that others rely upon such concealment, suppression or omission, in 14 connection with the sale of Class Vehicles. Accordingly, Defendants engaged in 15 unfair and deceptive acts or practices. 16 422. Defendants should have disclosed this information because they were 17 in a superior position to know the true facts related to the Defect, and Plaintiffs and 18 the Oregon Subclass could not reasonably be expected to learn or discover the true 19 facts related to this Defect. Defendants, by the conduct, statements, and omissions 20 described above, also knowingly, intentionally and/or willfully concealed from 21 Plaintiffs and the Oregon Subclass that the Class Vehicles suffer from the Defect 22 (and the costs, safety risks, and diminished value of the vehicles as a result of this 23 problem). 24 423. These acts and practices have deceived Plaintiffs, the Oregon Subclass 25 and the public. In failing to disclose the Defect and suppressing material facts from 26 Plaintiffs and the Oregon Subclass, Defendants breached their duties to disclose 27 these facts, violated the UTPA, and caused injuries to Plaintiffs and the Oregon 28 Subclass. Defendants’ omissions and acts of concealment pertained to information

Class Action Complaint - 100 - Case 2:21-cv-04030-VAP-JC Document 1 Filed 05/13/21 Page 101 of 115 Page ID #:101

1 that was material to Plaintiffs and Oregon Subclass, as it would have been to all 2 reasonable consumers. 3 424. These acts and omission are material facts that a reasonable person 4 would have considered in deciding whether or not to purchase (or to pay the same 5 price for) the Class Vehicles. 6 425. Defendants intended for Plaintiffs and the Oregon Subclass to rely on 7 Defendants’ omissions regarding the Defect. 8 426. Plaintiffs and the Oregon Subclass justifiably acted or relied to their 9 detriment upon Defendant’s omissions of fact concerning the Defect as evidenced 10 by Plaintiffs and the Oregon Subclass’s purchases of Class Vehicles. 11 427. Had Defendants disclosed all material information regarding the 12 Defect to Plaintiffs and the Oregon Subclass, Plaintiff and the Oregon Subclass 13 would not have purchased or leased Class Vehicles or would have paid less to do 14 so. 15 428. Defendants’ omissions have deceived Plaintiffs and the Oregon 16 Subclass, and those same business practices have deceived or are likely to deceive 17 members of the consuming public and the other members of the Class. 18 429. Defendants’ acts and omissions were likely to mislead a reasonable 19 consumer into purchasing Defendants’ products. Defendants’ deceptive acts are 20 material because they concern an essential feature of the Class Vehicles—the air 21 conditioning system. 22 430. The sale and distribution in Oregon of Class Vehicles was a consumer- 23 oriented act, and therefore is actionable under UTPA. 24 431. Plaintiffs and the Oregon Subclass relied on Defendants’ 25 misrepresentations and omissions; had Plaintiffs and the Oregon Subclass known 26 Class Vehicles suffered from the Defect, they would not have purchased Class 27 Vehicles and would have avoided the extensive repair costs associated therewith or 28 would have paid less for their Class Vehicles. Defendants’ conduct thus

Class Action Complaint - 101 - Case 2:21-cv-04030-VAP-JC Document 1 Filed 05/13/21 Page 102 of 115 Page ID #:102

1 proximately caused the injuries Plaintiffs and the Oregon Subclass have suffered 2 and complain of herein. 3 432. At all times, Defendants’ conduct in employing these unfair and 4 deceptive trade practices was malicious, willful, wanton and outrageous. 5 433. Defendants’ actions impact the public interest because Plaintiffs and 6 the Oregon Subclass were injured in exactly the same way as thousands of others 7 who purchased the Class Vehicles. 8 434. Defendants also have refused to act on grounds generally applicable to 9 Plaintiffs and the Oregon Subclass, thereby making final injunctive relief 10 appropriate. 11 435. Defendants persist in their deceptive and unfair marketing and sales 12 practices regarding the Class Vehicles to the detriment of consumers across the 13 country, including Plaintiffs and the Oregon Subclass. 14 436. If Defendants are allowed to continue with these practices, consumers, 15 including Plaintiffs and the Oregon Subclass, will be irreparably harmed. Plaintiffs 16 and the Oregon Subclass do not have a plain, adequate, speedy, or complete remedy 17 at law to address all of the wrongs alleged in this Complaint unless injunctive relief 18 is granted to stop Defendants’ deceptive marketing and sale of the Class Vehicles. 19 437. Plaintiffs and the Oregon Subclass thus are entitled to compensatory 20 damages, equitable and declaratory relief, punitive damages, costs and reasonable 21 attorneys’ fees, as well as injunctive relief requiring Defendants to cease their unfair 22 and deceptive practices relating to the sale of the Class Vehicles. 23 ELEVENTH CLAIM FOR RELIEF 24 Pennsylvania Unfair Trade Practices 25 And Consumer Protection Law 73 Pa. Stat. § 201-1, et seq. 26 (On behalf of the Pennsylvania Subclass) 27 438. Plaintiffs and the Class incorporate by reference each preceding and 28

Class Action Complaint - 102 - Case 2:21-cv-04030-VAP-JC Document 1 Filed 05/13/21 Page 103 of 115 Page ID #:103

1 succeeding paragraph as though fully set forth at length herein. 2 439. Plaintiffs are natural persons who purchased Class Vehicles for 3 personal, family or household purposes. 4 440. The Pennsylvania Unfair Trade Practices and Consumer Protection 5 Law ("PUTPCPL") prohibits "[u]nfair methods of competition and unfair or 6 deceptive acts or practices in the conduct of any trade or commerce" as set forth in 7 the statute. 73 Pa. Stat. § 201-3. 8 441. Defendants engaged in unfair and deceptive acts in the conduct of trade 9 or commerce in violation of the PUTPCPL by the practices described above, and 10 by knowingly and intentionally concealing from Plaintiffs and the Pennsylvania 11 Subclass that the Class Vehicles suffer from the Defect (and the costs, risks, and 12 diminished value of the vehicles as a result of this problem). These acts and 13 practices violate, at a minimum, the following sections of PUTPCPL section 201- 14 2: (4)(ii) Misrepresenting the source, sponsorship, approval or 15 certification of goods or services; 16 (4)(v) Representing that goods or services have sponsorship, approval, 17 18 characteristics, ingredients, uses, benefits or quantities that they do not 19 have or that a person has a sponsorship, approval, status, affiliation or 20 connection that he does not have; 21 (4)(vii) Representing that goods or services are of a particular standard, 22 quality or grade, or that goods are of a particular style or model, if they 23 are of another; 24 (4)(ix) Advertising goods and services with intent not to sell them as 25 advertised; and 26 (4)(xxi) Engaging in any other fraudulent or deceptive conduct which 27 creates a likelihood of confusion or of misunderstanding. 28

Class Action Complaint - 103 - Case 2:21-cv-04030-VAP-JC Document 1 Filed 05/13/21 Page 104 of 115 Page ID #:104

1 442. Defendants knew that Class Vehicles and their AC Systems were 2 defectively designed or manufactured, would fail prematurely, and were not 3 suitable for their intended use. 4 443. Defendants were under a duty to Plaintiffs and the Pennsylvania 5 Subclass to disclose the defective nature of the Class Vehicles and the Defect 6 because: 7 a. Defendants were in a superior position to know the true state of 8 facts about the safety defect and associated repair costs in the 9 Class Vehicles; 10 b. Plaintiffs and the Pennsylvania Subclass could not reasonably 11 have been expected to learn or discover that the Class Vehicles 12 and had a dangerous safety defect until manifestation of the 13 defect; 14 c. Defendants knew that Plaintiffs and the Pennsylvania Subclass 15 could not reasonably have been expected to learn or discover the 16 safety and security defect and the associated repair costs 17 necessitated thereby until the manifestation of the defect; and 18 d. Defendants actively concealed the safety and security defect and 19 the associated repair costs by claiming the Defect does not exist 20 and, in many cases, repairing Class Vehicles using similarly 21 defective AC System components. 22 444. In failing to disclose the Defect and the associated safety risks and 23 repair costs that result from it, Defendants have knowingly and intentionally 24 concealed material facts and breached their duty not to do so. 25 445. The facts concealed or not disclosed by Defendants to Plaintiffs and 26 the Pennsylvania Subclass are material in that a reasonable consumer would have 27 considered them to be important in deciding whether to purchase Defendants' Class 28 Vehicles or pay a lesser price. Had Plaintiffs and the Pennsylvania Subclass known

Class Action Complaint - 104 - Case 2:21-cv-04030-VAP-JC Document 1 Filed 05/13/21 Page 105 of 115 Page ID #:105

1 about the defective nature of the Class Vehicles, they would not have purchased the 2 Class Vehicles, would have paid less for them or would have avoided the extensive 3 repair costs associated therewith. 4 446. Unfair or deceptive acts and practices as defined by the PUTPCPL also 5 include “[f]ailing to comply with the terms of any written guarantee or warranty 6 given to the buyer at, prior to or after a contract for the purchase of goods or services 7 is made.” 73 Pa. Stat. § 201-2(4)(xiv). Defendants violated the PUTPCPL by 8 refusing to repair Plaintiffs and the Pennsylvania Subclass’ AC Systems at no cost. 9 447. Defendants' failure to honor their warranty terms proximately caused 10 injuries to Plaintiffs and the Pennsylvania Subclass. Had Defendants honored their 11 warranty, Plaintiffs and the Pennsylvania Subclass would not have incurred 12 substantial repair costs. 13 448. Pursuant to 73 Pennsylvania Statutes section 201-9.2, Plaintiffs 14 request that the Court grant treble damages. 15 TWELFTH CLAIM FOR RELIEF 16 Virginia Consumer Protection Act 17 VA Code § 59.1-196, et seq. (On behalf of the Virginia Subclass) 18 449. Plaintiffs incorporate by reference all allegations of the preceding 19 paragraphs as though fully set forth herein. 20 450. Virginia’s General Assembly intended the Virginia Consumer 21 Protection Act (“VCPA”) “as remedial legislation to promote fair and ethical 22 standards of dealings between suppliers and the consuming public.” Va. Code § 23 59.1-197. 24 451. Plaintiffs and the Virginia Subclass are “consumers” within the 25 meaning of the VCPA. 26 452. Defendants are “suppliers” within the meaning of the VCPA. 27 453. Defendants’ actions, as set forth above, occurred in the conduct of a 28

Class Action Complaint - 105 - Case 2:21-cv-04030-VAP-JC Document 1 Filed 05/13/21 Page 106 of 115 Page ID #:106

1 “consumer transaction” within the meaning of the VCPA. 2 454. Defendants engaged in unfair and deceptive acts in the conduct of a 3 consumer transaction in violation of the VCPA by the practices described above, 4 including knowingly, intentionally and/or willfully refusing to disclose and 5 concealing from Plaintiffs and the Virginia Subclass that the Class Vehicles suffer 6 from the Defect (and the costs, risks, and diminished value of the vehicles as a result 7 of this problem). These acts and practices violate the VCPA, at a minimum, in the 8 following ways: 9 a. Misrepresenting the source, sponsorship, approval, or certification of 10 goods or services; 11 b. Misrepresenting that goods or services have certain quantities, 12 characteristics, ingredients, uses, or benefits; 13 c. Misrepresenting that goods or services are of a particular standard, 14 quality, grade, style, or model; 15 d. Advertising goods or services with intent not to sell them as advertised, 16 or with intent not to sell at the price or upon the terms advertised; and 17 e. Using any other deception, fraud, false pretense, false promise, or 18 misrepresentation in connection with a consumer transaction. 19 455. Defendants knew that Class Vehicles and their AC Systems suffer 20 from a defect in materials, workmanship and/or design, would fail prematurely, and 21 were not suitable for their intended use. 22 456. Defendants were under a duty to Plaintiffs and the Virginia Subclass 23 to disclose the defective nature of the Class Vehicles and the Defect because:

24 a. Defendants were in a superior position to know the true state of facts 25 about the safety defect and associated repair costs in the Class 26 Vehicles; 27 28

Class Action Complaint - 106 - Case 2:21-cv-04030-VAP-JC Document 1 Filed 05/13/21 Page 107 of 115 Page ID #:107

1 b. Plaintiffs and the Virginia Subclass could not reasonably have been 2 expected to learn or discover that Class Vehicles suffered from a 3 dangerous safety defect until the Defect manifested;

4 c. Defendants knew that Plaintiffs and the Virginia Subclass could not 5 reasonably have been expected to learn or discover the safety and 6 security defect and the associated repair costs necessitated thereby 7 until the Defect manifested; 8 d. Defendants also actively concealed the safety and security defect 9 and the associated repair costs by claiming the Defect does not exist 10 and, in many cases, repairing Class Vehicles using similarly 11 defective AC System components. 12 457. In failing to disclose the Defect and the associated safety risks and 13 repair costs it imposes, Defendants have knowingly, intentionally and/or willfully 14 concealed material facts and breached their duty not to do so. 15 458. The facts concealed or not disclosed by Defendants to Plaintiffs and 16 the Virginia Subclass are material in that a reasonable consumer would have 17 considered them to be important in deciding whether to purchase Defendants’ Class 18 Vehicles or pay a lesser price. 19 459. Defendants also knowingly misrepresented the Class Vehicles as fit to 20 be used for the purpose for which they were intended, when, in fact, Defendants 21 knew the Class Vehicles were defective, dangerous, and not what was advertised. 22 Indeed, Defendants misrepresented the AC Systems in Class Vehicles as functional 23 and suited for their intended purpose, when, in fact, they were not. 24 460. Plaintiffs and the Virginia Subclass relied on Defendants’ 25 misrepresentations and omissions; had Plaintiffs and the Virginia Subclass known 26 Class Vehicles suffered from the Defect, they would not have purchased Class 27 Vehicles and would have avoided the extensive repair costs associated therewith, 28

Class Action Complaint - 107 - Case 2:21-cv-04030-VAP-JC Document 1 Filed 05/13/21 Page 108 of 115 Page ID #:108

1 or would have paid less for their Class Vehicles. Defendants’ conduct thus 2 proximately caused the injuries Plaintiffs and the Virginia Subclass have suffered 3 and complained of herein. 4 461. Pursuant to Virginia Code section 59.1-204, Plaintiffs request that the 5 Court grant treble damages and attorneys’ fees and costs. 6 THIRTEENTH CLAIM FOR RELIEF 7 Washington Consumer Protection Act 8 Wash. Rev. Code Ann. §§ 19.86.010, et seq. (On behalf of the Washington Subclass) 9 462. Plaintiffs incorporate by reference the allegations contained in the 10 preceding paragraphs of this Complaint. 11 463. The Washington Consumer Protection Act (“WCPA”) prohibits 12 “[u]nfair methods of competition and unfair or deceptive acts or practices in the 13 conduct of any trade or commerce…” Wash. Rev. Code Ann. § 19.86.020. 14 464. Plaintiffs and the Washington Subclass are “persons” pursuant to 15 WCPA. Wash. Rev. Code Ann. § 19.86.010. 16 465. Defendants engaged in “trade” or “commerce” pursuant to WCPA. 17 Wash. Rev. Code Ann. § 19.86.010. 18 466. Defendants’ conduct as set forth herein constitutes unfair or deceptive 19 acts or practices, including, but not limited to, Defendants’ manufacture and sale of 20 Class Vehicles with the Defect which Defendants failed to adequately investigate, 21 disclose and remedy. 22 467. Defendants knew about The Defect prior to the sale of the Class 23 Vehicles but did not disclose the existence of the Defect to Plaintiffs and the 24 Washington Subclass and concealed those defects. 25 468. Defendant omitted information regarding the safety and reliability of 26 the Class Vehicles. 27 469. Defendants are in the business of selling motor vehicles and therefore 28

Class Action Complaint - 108 - Case 2:21-cv-04030-VAP-JC Document 1 Filed 05/13/21 Page 109 of 115 Page ID #:109

1 are bound by WCPA which prohibits engaging in unfair or deceptive acts in the 2 conduct of any commerce or trade. 3 470. In the course of their business, Defendants knowingly, intentionally 4 and/or willfully failed to disclose and actively concealed the Defect in the Class 5 Vehicles as described herein and otherwise engaged in activities with a tendency or 6 capacity to deceive. Defendants also engaged in unlawful trade practices by 7 employing deception, deceptive acts or practices, fraud, misrepresentations, or 8 concealment, suppression or omission of any material fact with intent that others 9 rely upon such concealment, suppression or omission, in connection with the sale 10 of Class Vehicles. Accordingly, Defendants engaged in unfair and deceptive acts or 11 practices. 12 471. Defendants should have disclosed this information because they were 13 in a superior position to know the true facts related to the Defect, and Plaintiffs and 14 the Washington Subclass could not reasonably be expected to learn or discover the 15 true facts related to this Defect. Defendants, by the conduct, statements, and 16 omissions described above, also knowingly, intentionally and/or willfully 17 concealed from Plaintiffs and the Washington Subclass that the Class Vehicles 18 suffer from the Defect (and the costs, safety risks, and diminished value of the 19 vehicles as a result of this problem). 20 472. These acts and practices have deceived Plaintiffs, the Washington 21 Subclass and the public. In failing to disclose the Defect and suppressing material 22 facts from Plaintiffs and the Washington Subclass, Defendants breached their duties 23 to disclose these facts, violated WCPA, and caused injuries to Plaintiffs and the 24 Washington Subclass. Defendants’ omissions and acts of concealment pertained to 25 information that was material to Plaintiffs and Washington Subclass, as it would 26 have been to all reasonable consumers. 27 473. Defendants’ acts and omissions were likely to mislead a reasonable 28 consumer into purchasing Defendants’ products. Defendants’ deceptive acts are

Class Action Complaint - 109 - Case 2:21-cv-04030-VAP-JC Document 1 Filed 05/13/21 Page 110 of 115 Page ID #:110

1 material because they concern an essential feature of the Class Vehicles—the air 2 conditioning system. 3 474. The sale and distribution in Washington of Class Vehicles was a 4 consumer-oriented act, and therefore is actionable under WCPA. 5 475. Plaintiffs and the Washington Subclass relied on Defendants’ 6 misrepresentations and omissions; had Plaintiffs and the Washington Subclass 7 known Class Vehicles suffered from the Defect, they would not have purchased 8 Class Vehicles and would have avoided the extensive repair costs associated 9 therewith, or would have paid less for their Class Vehicles. Defendants’ conduct 10 thus proximately caused the injuries Plaintiffs and the Washington Subclass have 11 suffered and complain of herein. 12 476. At all times, Defendants’ conduct in employing these unfair and 13 deceptive trade practices was malicious, willful, wanton and outrageous. 14 477. Defendants’ actions impact the public interest because Plaintiffs and 15 the Washington Subclass were injured in exactly the same way as thousands of 16 others who purchased the Class Vehicles. 17 478. Defendants also have refused to act on grounds generally applicable to 18 Plaintiffs and the Washington Subclass, thereby making final injunctive relief 19 appropriate. 20 479. Defendants persist in their deceptive and unfair marketing and sales 21 practices regarding the Class Vehicles to the detriment of consumers across the 22 country, including Plaintiffs and the Washington Subclass. 23 480. If Defendants are allowed to continue with these practices, consumers, 24 including Plaintiffs and the Washington Subclass, will be irreparably harmed. 25 Plaintiffs and the Washington Subclass do not have a plain, adequate, speedy, or 26 complete remedy at law to address all of the wrongs alleged in this Complaint unless 27 injunctive relief is granted to stop Defendants’ deceptive marketing and sale of the 28 Class Vehicles.

Class Action Complaint - 110 - Case 2:21-cv-04030-VAP-JC Document 1 Filed 05/13/21 Page 111 of 115 Page ID #:111

1 481. Plaintiffs and the Washington Subclass thus are entitled to 2 compensatory damages, equitable and declaratory relief, punitive damages, costs 3 and reasonable attorneys’ fees, as well as injunctive relief requiring Defendants to 4 cease their unfair and deceptive practices relating to the sale of the Class Vehicles.

5 FOURTEENTH CLAIM FOR RELIEF 6 Negligence (On behalf of the National Class) 7 8 482. Plaintiffs incorporate by reference the allegations contained in the 9 preceding paragraphs of this Complaint. 10 483. Honda owed Class Members a duty of reasonable care to ensure that 11 the air conditioning system within the Class Vehicles would operate safely and 12 properly for its reasonably anticipated use. 13 484. Honda breached its duty by failing to ensure that the condensers used 14 in the Class Vehicles were free from the Defect. Honda also breached its duty by 15 failing to warn Plaintiffs and Class Members that the condensers used in Class 16 Vehicles were not free from the Defect or the safety hazards caused by it. 17 485. As a direct and proximate result of Honda’s negligence, Class 18 Vehicles’ AC Systems are prone to fail when the Class Vehicles are operated in 19 reasonable, usual and ordinary driving conditions, leading to air conditioning 20 system failure in Class Vehicles, creating a safety hazard because they cannot be 21 driven safely under all reasonably expected weather conditions and thus are not 22 reliable for safe transportation. As a result, Plaintiffs and Class Members have 23 suffered damages. 24

25 26 FIFTEENTH CLAIM FOR RELIEF Unjust Enrichment 27 (On behalf of the National Class)

28

Class Action Complaint - 111 - Case 2:21-cv-04030-VAP-JC Document 1 Filed 05/13/21 Page 112 of 115 Page ID #:112

1 486. Plaintiffs incorporate by reference the allegations contained in the 2 preceding paragraphs of this Complaint. 3 487. As described above, Honda sold Class Vehicles to Class Members 4 even though the air conditioning system installed in those vehicles are defective and 5 pose a safety hazard, and failed to disclose its knowledge of the Defect and its 6 attendant risks at the point of sale or otherwise. Furthermore, Honda charges for 7 repairs of the air conditioning system without disclosing that the AC System Defect 8 is widespread and that the repairs do not address its root cause. 9 488. As a result of its fraudulent acts and omissions related to the defective 10 air conditioning system, Honda obtained monies which rightfully belong to 11 Plaintiffs and Class Members to their detriment. 12 489. Honda appreciated, accepted, and retained the non-gratuitous benefits 13 conferred by Plaintiffs and Class Members, who, without knowledge of the Defect, 14 paid a higher price for their vehicles than those vehicles were worth. Honda also 15 received monies for vehicles that Plaintiffs and Class Members who would not have 16 otherwise purchased Class Vehicles had they been aware of the Defect. 17 490. Honda’s retention of these wrongfully-obtained profits would violate 18 the fundamental principles of justice, equity, and good conscience. 19 491. Plaintiffs and Class Members are entitled to restitution of the profits 20 Honda unjustly obtained, plus interest. 21 PRAYER FOR RELIEF 22 Plaintiffs, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, request 23 the Court enter judgment against Honda, and accordingly request the following: 24 a. An order certifying the proposed Class and Subclasses and designating 25 Plaintiffs as named representatives of the Classes and Subclass, and 26 designating the undersigned as Class Counsel; 27 b. A declaration that Honda is financially responsible for notifying all 28

Class Action Complaint - 112 - Case 2:21-cv-04030-VAP-JC Document 1 Filed 05/13/21 Page 113 of 115 Page ID #:113

1 Class Members about the defective nature of the Class Vehicles; 2 c. A declaration that both the Basic Limited and Powertrain Limited 3 Warranties fail their essential purpose; 4 d. An order enjoining Honda from further deceptive distribution, sales, 5 and lease practices with respect to their Class Vehicles; to repair all 6 other damages to the Class Vehicles caused by the Defect; 7 e. A further order enjoining Honda from the conduct alleged herein, 8 including an order enjoining Honda from concealing the existence of 9 the Defect during distribution, sales, and advertisements, as well as 10 during customer and warranty service visits for the Class Vehicles; 11 f. An award to Plaintiffs and Class Members of compensatory, actual, 12 exemplary, and statutory damages, including interest, in an amount to 13 be proven at trial; 14 g. A declaration that Honda must disgorge, for the benefit of Plaintiffs 15 and Class Members, all or part of the ill-gotten profits it received from 16 the sale or lease of their Class Vehicles, or make full restitution to 17 Plaintiffs and Class Members; 18 h. An award of attorneys’ fees and costs pursuant to California Code of 19 Civil Procedure § 1021.5 and/or all other applicable laws; 20 i. An award of pre-judgment and post-judgment interest, as provided by 21 law; 22 j. Any and all remedies provided pursuant to the Song-Beverly Act, 23 including California Civil Code § 1794; 24 k. Leave to amend the Complaint to conform to the evidence produced 25 through discovery and at trial; 26 l. Such other relief as may be appropriate under the circumstances. 27 28

Class Action Complaint - 113 - Case 2:21-cv-04030-VAP-JC Document 1 Filed 05/13/21 Page 114 of 115 Page ID #:114

1 DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL 2 Plaintiffs individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, hereby 3 demand a trial by jury as to all matters so triable. 4 Date: May 13, 2021 s/Alex R. Straus 5 Alex R. Straus, SBN 321366 6 [email protected] GREG COLEMAN LAW PC 7 16748 McCormack Street 8 Los Angeles, CA 91436 T: 917-471-1894 9 F: 310-496-3176 10 Lisa A. White* 11 [email protected] 12 GREG COLEMAN LAW PC First Tennessee Plaza 13 800 S. Gay Street, Suite 1100 14 Knoxville, TN 37929 Telephone: (865) 247-0080 15 Facsimile: (865) 522-0049 16 Daniel O. Herrera* 17 [email protected] 18 CAFFERTY CLOBES MERIWETHER & SPRENGEL LLP 19 150 S. Wacker, Suite 3000 20 Chicago, Illinois 60606 Telephone: 312-782 4880 21 Facsimile: 312-782-4485 22 Bryan L. Clobes* 23 [email protected] 24 CAFFERTY CLOBES MERIWETHER & SPRENGEL LLP 25 205 N. Monroe St. 26 Media, PA 19063 Telephone: (215) 864-2800 27 Facsimile: (215) 964-2808 28

Class Action Complaint - 114 - Case 2:21-cv-04030-VAP-JC Document 1 Filed 05/13/21 Page 115 of 115 Page ID #:115

Shanon J. Carson* 1 Glen L. Abramson* 2 [email protected] [email protected] 3 BERGER MONTAGUE PC 4 1818 Market Street, Suite 3600 5 Philadelphia, PA 19103 Telephone: (215) 875-3000 6 Facsimile: (215) 875-4604 7 * pro hac vice applications to follow 8 9 Attorneys for Plaintiffs 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28

Class Action Complaint - 115 -