James V. Selna

In Re Toyota Motor Corp. Unintended Acceleration Marketing, Sales Practices, & Products Liability Litigation

District Court, C.D. California · 2011-11-30 · cited 16×

This case involves a putative class of foreign plaintiffs from multiple countries who purchased Toyota vehicles and alleged defects causing unintended acceleration, asserting claims under RICO, California's CLRA and UCL, fraudulent concealment, negligence, and products liability design defect against Toyota Motor Corporation and its subsidiaries. The court addressed motions to dismiss for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction under Rule 12(b)(1), failure to join indispensable parties under Rule 12(b)(7) and Rule 19, and failure to state a claim under Rule 12(b)(6), along with a motion to strike allegations of mutual agency. The court granted both the motion to dismiss the operative complaint in full and the motion to strike, citing deficiencies including the extraterritorial reach of RICO and state consumer statutes, inadequate particularity in pleading predicate acts and fraud, lack of complete diversity jurisdiction between foreign plaintiffs and a foreign defendant once federal claims were dismissed, and the necessity of additional parties. The ruling limited consideration to plaintiffs from Canada and Mexico but still found the claims insufficient on these procedural and substantive grounds.

business & regulatoryproceduretorts & liability

In Re Toyota Motor Corp.

District Court, C.D. California · 2011-05-13 · cited 27×

This case is a consolidated class action by vehicle owners against Toyota alleging economic losses stemming from unintended acceleration caused by defects in the electronic throttle control systems of certain Toyota models. The court addressed Toyota's motion to dismiss the second amended complaint, which asserted claims under California's Unfair Competition Law, False Advertising Law, Consumer Legal Remedies Act, express and implied warranties, and related theories. The court granted the motion in part and denied it in part, holding that most plaintiffs adequately alleged Article III standing through plausible economic injury from a safety defect and actual reliance for statutory claims, but dismissing certain warranty and unjust enrichment claims for lack of privity or failure to plead essential elements. The reasoning applied prior rulings on standing and pleading standards, requiring concrete allegations of injury, reliance, and breach while declining to consider arguments not properly briefed.

business & regulatoryprocedure

Federal Trade Commission v. Lights of America, Inc.

District Court, C.D. California · 2010-12-17 · cited 9×

The case involved the Federal Trade Commission suing Lights of America, Inc. and its two owner-officers for alleged violations of the FTC Act through false or unsubstantiated marketing claims about the watt equivalency, lumen output, and lifespan of the company's LED lamps. The Vakils moved to dismiss the complaint against them individually under Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 9(b) and 8(a). The court granted the motion, holding that claims under Section 5 of the FTC Act are subject to Rule 9(b)'s heightened particularity standard because they sound in fraud or negligent misrepresentation. The complaint failed to allege with sufficient specificity the Vakils' personal participation in the deceptive acts, the falsity of the representations, or the other elements of fraud.

business & regulatoryprocedure

SINTAY v. Martel

District Court, C.D. California · 2010-10-26

The case involved a federal habeas corpus petition filed by Brian Sintay, who had pleaded guilty in state court to multiple counts of sexual offenses against a minor and received an 18-year prison sentence. After his direct appeal and state habeas petitions were denied, Sintay sought federal relief under 28 U.S.C. § 2254, raising claims that his convictions violated federal constitutional rights. The district court adopted the magistrate judge's report and recommendation in full after de novo review. It denied the petition with prejudice, dismissed the action, and declined to issue a certificate of appealability, concluding that Sintay had not shown a substantial denial of a constitutional right and that the state courts' decisions were not contrary to clearly established federal law. The court further found that any appeal would not be taken in good faith.

criminal lawprocedure

Henley v. DeVore

District Court, C.D. California · 2010-06-10 · cited 9×

Tyr Sport, Inc. v. Warnaco Swimwear, Inc.

District Court, C.D. California · 2010-05-03

Affiliations

Decision record

James V. Selna

Affiliations

Decision record