This Lawsuit Against Honda Has Plaintiff Lawyers Very Worried
Car companies have deep pockets, therefore, they get sued all the time for the silliest things. A good deal of what you pay for the car goes to paying lawyers. Those of the car company, and especially those who start class action suits. When the suit is won or settled, the lawyers get a fat cut of the award, and the customers get a coupon for a free oil change or other valuable stuff.
A woman from Los Angeles has plaintiff lawyers very worried.
According to the Los Angeles Times, “Heather Peters is an angry consumer who knows she has little chance of winning a war with Honda Motor Co. and its army of high-priced lawyers.”
But what if that army of high-priced lawyers is disarmed and must stay home? Heather Peters has devised a strategy that cuts out the lawyers.
For years, there have been class action suits over the fuel economy of Honda’s
Heather Peters won’t settle with Honda. Instead, she will plead her case at the Small Claims Court in Torrance. According to California law, neither party is allowed to bring a lawyer to Small Claims Court. Peters will sue on January 3rd, because in 2012, California raises the Small Claims limit to $10,000. Peters will be asking for the maximum.
She is also asking Honda owners to follow her example. She set up her DontSettleWithHonda.org website and a DontSettleWithHonda Twitter account. The site state-by-state instructions for filing these lawsuits.
According to the LA Times, 200,000 Civic hybrids were sold over six years. Used car buyers are eligible as well, which could bring the number of claimants to half a million.
“This could create a lot of problems in the industry,” said Aaron Jacoby, the Los Angeles defense attorney who heads the automotive industry group at the Fox law firm.
If revolutions can be started with Twitter, then surely groups of claimants can find each other and plan a united, but separate assault.
Mass filings could tax the resources of a company, which has to send an employee to the hearing if the state does not allow lawyers. Most of all, they could make plaintiff’s attorneys look for other deep pocket targets.
She may need a little help with the video presentation. Or maybe that’s part of the strategy.
Bertel Schmitt comes back to journalism after taking a 35 year break in advertising and marketing. He ran and owned advertising agencies in Duesseldorf, Germany, and New York City. Volkswagen A.G. was Bertel's most important corporate account. Schmitt's advertising and marketing career touched many corners of the industry with a special focus on automotive products and services. Since 2004, he lives in Japan and China with his wife <a href="http://www.tomokoandbertel.com"> Tomoko </a>. Bertel Schmitt is a founding board member of the <a href="http://www.offshoresuperseries.com"> Offshore Super Series </a>, an American offshore powerboat racing organization. He is co-owner of the racing team Typhoon.
More by Bertel Schmitt
Comments
Join the conversation
Maybe I missed it, but I didn't see anyone mention this fundamental problem with the initial 'problem' of lawyers: Small claims court will not exclude lawyers from the process. When you sue a company, who shows up to represent them? Does she think it will be the president of Honda? You'd better believe that the person they send will be a lawyer. Also, who will prepare their case? Who will prepare/train/coach their representative? Yep, more lawyers. She will have no chance, and every big company knows that. And once she fails, so will consumers. Don't expect anything to change.
This strikes me as kind of weird. In every place I have been, corporate persons MUST be represented by counsel in any court, even though individuals may represent themselves. So, a rule that bars a corporation (or any other kind of person) from being represented by counsel of their choice in a court of law strikes me as a huge due process violation . . . unless, as is the case in my neck of the woods, small claims court decisions are appealable de novo to the court of general jurisdiction. ("De Novo" means you start all over again and the initial decision is worth nothing.) So long as Honda can prove that the car which achieved the rated EPA numbers is the same as the version offered for sale, there's no case. The woman's beef is with the EPA test, not with Honda. It doesn't matter whether the software was altered to prolong battery life or not. (Honda's only obligation is to have the battery last for the duration of whatever warranty they offer on it.) Which is why, as others have pointed out, the EPA numbers are always (in fact required to be) advertised with disclaimers (i.e. "your mileage will vary, etc.")