The US Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit has affirmed the dismissal of a putative class action claiming Suzuki motorcycles carry a defective front brake master cylinder, holding that the plaintiffs’ third amended complaint never identified what the defect actually was. The unpublished memorandum disposition in Jackson v. Suzuki Motor of America, Inc. resolves an appeal from the Central District of California, where District Judge Fred W. Slaughter dismissed the case under Rule 12(b)(6). The panel decided the matter without oral argument and issued the disposition as non-precedential under Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3. Judge Eric C. Tung, sitting with Judges Johnnie B. Rawlinson and Gabriel P. Sanchez, concurred in the result but broke sharply with the majority’s reasoning.
Highlights
- The panel affirmed dismissal after the plaintiffs had reached a third amended complaint, and upheld the district court’s refusal to grant a fifth opportunity to plead.
- Plaintiffs abandoned the reservoir-port theory tied to Suzuki’s 2013 recall, arguing on appeal that ongoing galvanic corrosion inside the front brake master cylinder caused their braking problems.
- The majority treated Suzuki’s two front brake master cylinder recalls as affirmative steps that made an inference of wrongdoing particularly implausible.
- Judge Tung would have affirmed on causation alone, calling the majority’s separate holding on defect unnecessary and most likely incorrect.
What the Riders Alleged
Six named plaintiffs — Dvaughn Jackson, Abraham Vazquez, Moroni Rodriguez, Fabio De Mello, Allen Clark and Lori Martin — brought the action against Suzuki Motor of America, Inc., a California corporation, on behalf of themselves and a proposed class. They alleged that a design defect common to the front brake master cylinder across Suzuki motorcycles left the component prone to corrosion, and that each of them had experienced brake problems as a result.
The complaint described the master cylinder’s function and the chemistry of the corrosion process in detail. What it did not do, the majority found, was identify the defect itself or connect it to the brake failures the riders reported.
Where the Pleading Fell Short
Applying Twombly and Iqbal, the majority held that describing a component and a chemical process does not give a defendant fair notice of the claim against it. The plaintiffs had originally faulted Suzuki for failing to fix the defect addressed by the 2013 recall, but clarified on appeal that the reservoir port location at issue in that campaign was not their theory.
That left ongoing galvanic corrosion as the alleged mechanism. Even accepting it as true, the majority wrote, the theory did not establish a specific design defect or support a plausible inference of wrongdoing. The plaintiffs asserted that the piston’s protective coating fails during normal operation, but did not allege how that failure arises from a defect rather than from natural wear over the useful life of the motorcycle — no defect in the coating materials, no problem with how the pieces were positioned, no other design factor that would cause premature failure.
Why Did the Recalls Help Suzuki?
The most consequential passage for brake industry readers is short. Because Suzuki had taken affirmative steps to prevent and address accelerated corrosion through two front brake master cylinder recalls, the majority found an inference of wrongdoing “particularly implausible.” Recall evidence more often cuts against a manufacturer; here the panel read it as a record of remediation.
A Split Over Defect Versus Causation
Judge Tung agreed the dismissal should stand, but on narrower grounds. In his view the majority needed only to reach causation, and its additional holding on defect was both unnecessary and probably wrong. He read the complaint as specifically alleging a defective piston coating that fails to prevent a chemical reaction with the brake fluid, producing acid deposits, solid metallics and oxide debris that limit brake pressure build-up.
The cleaner route to affirmance, he wrote, was the one the district court took. The plaintiffs alleged they owned Suzuki motorcycles and experienced brake failure, but not that they had observed corrosion or been told by a mechanic that corrosion was the cause. Their own allegations pointed elsewhere: service technicians attributed the reported brake issues to worn pads, brake fluid needing replacement, or brake lines needing replacement. The district court had found the plaintiffs failed to plausibly allege that their braking problems stemmed from the same defect subject to the 2012 and 2013 recalls.
Reconsideration and Amendment Also Denied
The panel found no abuse of discretion in the denial of reconsideration, describing Rule 59(e) relief as an extraordinary remedy reserved for highly unusual circumstances. The plaintiffs identified no intervening change in controlling law, and their argument that offering to disclose otherwise privileged investigations amounted to previously unavailable evidence was waived for not having been raised below. Their Rule 60(b)(1) argument was waived as insufficiently developed, as was their challenge to the denial of leave to amend. Even setting waiver aside, the panel held, references to unspecified expert reports amounted to vague promises of additional information rather than facts that would cure the complaint’s deficiencies.
Subscribe to The BRAKE Report. Get free sample chapters.
