This case was last updated from PACER on 08/14/2021 at 09:56:46 (UTC).

Robert Buettner v. Hyundai Motor America, Inc. et al

Case Summary

On June 15, 2021, Robert Buettner (“Plaintiff”), on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated, represented by Matthew J. Preusch of Keller Rohrback LLP, filed a personal injury lawsuit against Hyundai Motor America, Inc. (“HMA”), and Hyundai Motor Company (“HMC”), (together, “Hyundai Defendants”) and Kia America, Inc. (“KA”), and Kia Corporation (“KCO”), (together, “Kia Defendants”) (collectively, “Defendants”), seeking injunctive and equitable relief among other reliefs for allegedly manufacturing and designing defective leads leading to premature engine wear and damage. This case was filed in the U.S. District Court in the Central District of California. 

 

Pursuant to Rules 23(a), (b)(2), and (b)(3) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, Plaintiff brings this action on behalf of himself and All persons or entities in the United States (including its territories and the District of Columbia) who purchased or leased a Class Vehicle and on behalf of Washington State Class.

 

In his complaint, the Plaintiff alleged that, “Defendants’ Theta II 2.0L and 2.4L multi-point injection or “MPI” engines are defective. The defect is the same across Defendants’ vehicles equipped with Theta II MPI engines, including vehicles equipped with both 2.0L and 2.4L engines (“Class Vehicles”). Class Vehicles include both Hyundai and Kia vehicles, including the following model years: 2010–2012 Santa Fe, 2009–2010 Sonata, 2011–2016 Sonata Hybrid, etc. (the “Hyundai Class Vehicles”); 2010–2013 Forte, 2012–2013 Forte Koup, 2009–2016 Optima, 2011–2013 Optima Hybrid, 2011–2013 Sorento, and 2011–2013 Sportage (the “Kia Class Vehicles”). The Class Vehicles suffer from a manufacturing and/or design defect that leads to premature engine wear and damage. The defect is present in the engines when Defendants’ vehicles are sold. Over time, the defect can result in damage to various engine components, and, ultimately, lead to dangerous and unsafe driving conditions.”

 

The Plaintiff further alleged that the engines become so unsafe that it can catch “Engine stalls, fires, and damage to various relevant engine components in vehicles equipped with Theta II MPI engines have been reported far and wide by consumers, who have made hundreds if not thousands of relevant complaints to NHTSA. Defendants have also issued numerous recalls, “Product Improvement Campaigns,” and Technical Service Bulletins (“TSBs”). These efforts demonstrate that Defendants have long known about the existence of the defect but have attempted to conceal its true nature and severity by offering piecemeal, incomplete fixes.”

 

There are five claims for relief laid down by the Plaintiff. The first and second claims deal with alleged fraud by concealment under Common Law, and alleged violations of the California Unfair Competition Law Cal. Bus. & Prof. Code § 17200, et seq, respectively. The third and fourth claims deal with alleged violations of the California False Advertising Law Cal. Bus. & Prof. Code § 17500, et seq and California Consumer Legal Remedies Act Cal. Civ. Code § 1750, et seq, respectively. The last claim deals with alleged violations of the Washington Consumer Protection Act Wash. Rev. Code § 19.86.010, et seq.

 

In his prayer for relief, the Plaintiff has requested the court to certify this action as class action, for an order enjoining Defendants from continuing the unlawful business practices, with an appropriate injunctive and equitable relief requiring, order Defendants to buy back all Class Vehicles and/or replace the defective engines with non- defective engines, and to fully reimburse the Plaintiff and Class members for all costs and economic losses, and an order requiring Defendants to pay both pre- and post-judgment interest on amounts awarded along with costs of litigation. 

 

This case summary may not reflect the current position of the parties to this litigation or the status of this case. Sign up to view the latest case updates and court documents.




Case Details Parties Documents Dockets

 

Case Details

  • Case Number:

    8:21-CV-01057

  • Filing Date:

    06/15/2021

  • Case Status:

    Pending - Other Pending

  • Case Type:

    Personal Injury - Motor Vehicle Product Liability

  • Courthouse:

    California Central District

Judge Details

Presiding Judge

Josephine L. Staton

Referral Judge

John D. Early

 

Party Details

Plaintiff

Robert Buettner

Defendants

Kia Corporation

Hyundai Motor Company, -

Hyundai Motor America, Inc.

Kia America, Inc.

Hyundai Motor Company

Attorney/Law Firm Details

Plaintiff Attorneys

Matthew J Preusch

Attorney at Keller Rohrback LLP

801 Garden Street Suite 301

Santa Barbara, CA 93101

Adele A. Daniel

Attorney at Keller Rohrback LLP

1201 Third Avenue Suite 3200

Seattle, WA 98101

Benjamin L. Bailey

Attorney at Bailey and Glasser LLP

209 Capitol Street

Charleston, WV 25301

Gretchen F. Cappio

Attorney at Keller Rohrback LLP

1201 Third Avenue Suite 3200

Seattle, WA 98101

H. Clay Barnett, III

Attorney at Beasley Allen Crow Methvin Portis and Miles PC

218 Commerce Street

Montgomery, AL 36104

James Mitchell Williams

Attorney at Beasley Allen Crow Methvin Portis and Miles PC

218 Commerce Street

Montgomery, AL 36104

Jonathan D. Boggs

Attorney at Bailey and Glasser LLP

209 Capitol Street

Charleston, WV 25301

Maxwell H. Goins

Attorney at Keller Rohrback LLP

1201 Third Avenue Suite 3200

Seattle, WA 98101

Ryan P. McDevitt

Attorney at Keller Rohrback LLP

1201 Third Avenue Suite 3200

Seattle, WA 98101

Wilson Daniel Miles, III

Attorney at Beasley Allen Crow Methvin Portis and Miles PC

218 Commerce Street

Montgomery, AL 36104

Defendant Attorney

Shon Morgan

Attorney at Quinn Emanuel Urquhart and Sullivan LLP

865 South Figueroa Street 10Th Floor

Los Angeles, CA 90017-2543

 

Court Documents

#45

(#45) ORDER REGARDING JOINT STIPULATION TO EXTEND TIME TO RESPOND TO PLAINTIFFS COMPLAINT #44 by Judge Josephine L. Staton that the stipulation is granted as to the following: (1) If the motion for consolidation is granted in Flaherty, plaintiffs in the consolidated action anticipate filing a consolidated amended complaint within 60 days of approval; and (2) If the motion for consolidation is denied, the parties will propose a briefing schedule for defendants answer or any motion to dismiss in response to the complaint, (Dkt. 1), within 14 days of denial. (jp) (Entered: 08/13/2021)

44 #1

Proposed Order

44 #44

Main Document

#43

(#43) ORDER REGARDING SERVICE OF PROCESS AND EXTENSION OF TIME #39 by Judge Josephine L. Staton. It is hereby ORDERED that the stipulation is granted as to the following: 1. Foreign entities, KC and HMC, agree to accept service of the Complaint and to waive the formalities of service under Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 4(d) and not assert their rights under the Hague Convention for the purposes of this action only, expressly conditioned upon the terms stated below. 2. KC, KA, HMC, and HMA will serve their responses to any complaints and amended complaints on the same day. 3. The deadline for KC, KA, HMC, and HMA to respond to the complaint (Dkt. 1) will be August 19, 2021. 4. KC, KA, HMC, and HMA shall have an additional forty five (45) days to that permitted under the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure (i.e., a total of 75 days) to serve plaintiff with objections and/or responses to any and all discovery requests propounded by plaintiff in this action. The additional time will allow domestic entities, KA and HMA, to properly coordinate their responses with those of the foreign entities, KC and HMC. See order for further details and deadlines. (lom) (Entered: 07/13/2021)

#42

(#42) NOTICE of Related Case(s) filed by defendants Hyundai Motor America, Inc., Hyundai Motor Company, Kia America, Inc., Kia Corporation. Related Case(s): 8:19-cv-01069-JLS-JDE, 8:19-cv-00854-JLS-JDE, 8:20-cv-01503-JLS-ADS, 6:19-cv-00250-CEM-KRS (M.D. Fla.) (Morgan, Shon) (Entered: 07/07/2021)

#41

(#41) Certificate and NOTICE of Interested Parties filed by defendants Kia America, Inc., Kia Corporation, identifying Hyundai Motor America, Hyundai Motor Company, Kia America, Inc., Kia Corporation, Robert Buettner. (Morgan, Shon) (Entered: 07/07/2021)

#40

(#40) Certificate and NOTICE of Interested Parties filed by defendants Hyundai Motor America, Inc., Hyundai Motor Company, identifying Hyundai Motor America, Hyundai Motor Company, Kia America, Inc., Kia Corporation, Robert Buettner. (Morgan, Shon) (Entered: 07/07/2021)

39 #1

Proposed Order

39 #39

Main Document

#9

(#9) NOTICE OF PRO HAC VICE APPLICATION DUE for Non-Resident Attorney Gretchen Freeman Cappio on behalf of Plaintiff. A document recently filed in this case lists you as an out-of-state attorney of record. However, the Court has not been able to locate any record that you are admitted to the Bar of this Court, and you have not filed an application to appear Pro Hac Vice in this case. Accordingly, within 5 business days of the date of this notice, you must either (1) have your local counsel file an application to appear Pro Hac Vice (Form G-64) and pay the applicable fee, or (2) complete the next section of this form and return it to the court at cacd_attyadm@cacd.uscourts.gov. You have been removed as counsel of record from the docket in this case, and you will not be added back to the docket until your Pro Hac Vice status has been resolved. (et) (Entered: 06/16/2021)

#8

(#8) NOTICE OF PRO HAC VICE APPLICATION DUE for Non-Resident Attorney Lynn Lincoln Sarko on behalf of Plaintiff. A document recently filed in this case lists you as an out-of-state attorney of record. However, the Court has not been able to locate any record that you are admitted to the Bar of this Court, and you have not filed an application to appear Pro Hac Vice in this case. Accordingly, within 5 business days of the date of this notice, you must either (1) have your local counsel file an application to appear Pro Hac Vice (Form G-64) and pay the applicable fee, or (2) complete the next section of this form and return it to the court at cacd_attyadm@cacd.uscourts.gov. You have been removed as counsel of record from the docket in this case, and you will not be added back to the docket until your Pro Hac Vice status has been resolved. (et) (Entered: 06/16/2021)

#7

(#7) NOTICE OF DEFICIENCIES in Attorney Case Opening RE: Complaint (Attorney Civil Case Opening) #1 . The following error(s) was found: No Notice of Interested Parties has been filed. A Notice of Interested Parties must be filed with every partys first appearance. See Local Rule 7.1-1. Counsel must file a Notice of Interested Parties immediately. Failure to do so may be addressed by judicial action, including sanctions. See Local Rule 83-7. (et) (Entered: 06/16/2021)

#6

(#6) 21 DAY Summons Issued re Complaint (Attorney Civil Case Opening) #1 as to Defendants Hyundai Motor America, Inc., Hyundai Motor Company, Kia America, Inc., Kia Corporation. (et) (Entered: 06/16/2021)

#5

(#5) NOTICE TO PARTIES OF COURT-DIRECTED ADR PROGRAM filed. (et) (Entered: 06/16/2021)

#4

(#4) NOTICE OF ASSIGNMENT to District Judge Cormac J. Carney and Magistrate Judge John D. Early. (et) (Entered: 06/16/2021)

#3

(#3) Request for Clerk to Issue Summons on Complaint (Attorney Civil Case Opening) #1 filed by Plaintiff Robert Buettner. (Preusch, Matthew) (Entered: 06/15/2021)

#2

(#2) CIVIL COVER SHEET filed by Plaintiff Robert Buettner. (Preusch, Matthew) (Entered: 06/15/2021)

#1

(#44) Joint STIPULATION for Extension of Time to File Response as to Complaint (Attorney Civil Case Opening) #1 filed by defendants Hyundai Motor America, Inc., Hyundai Motor Company, Kia America, Inc., Kia Corporation. (Attachments: #1 Proposed Order)(Morgan, Shon) (Entered: 08/10/2021)

73 More Documents Available
View All Documents

 

Docket Entries

  • 08/13/2021
  • View Court Documents
  • Docket(#45) ORDER REGARDING JOINT STIPULATION TO EXTEND TIME TO RESPOND TO PLAINTIFFS COMPLAINT #44 by Judge Josephine L. Staton that the stipulation is granted as to the following: (1) If the motion for consolidation is granted in Flaherty, plaintiffs in the consolidated action anticipate filing a consolidated amended complaint within 60 days of approval; and (2) If the motion for consolidation is denied, the parties will propose a briefing schedule for defendants answer or any motion to dismiss in response to the complaint, (Dkt. 1), within 14 days of denial. (jp) (Entered: 08/13/2021)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 08/10/2021
  • View Court Documents
  • Docket(#44) Joint STIPULATION for Extension of Time to File Response as to Complaint (Attorney Civil Case Opening) #1 filed by defendants Hyundai Motor America, Inc., Hyundai Motor Company, Kia America, Inc., Kia Corporation. (Attachments: #1 Proposed Order)(Morgan, Shon) (Entered: 08/10/2021)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 07/12/2021
  • View Court Documents
  • Docket(#43) ORDER REGARDING SERVICE OF PROCESS AND EXTENSION OF TIME #39 by Judge Josephine L. Staton. It is hereby ORDERED that the stipulation is granted as to the following: 1. Foreign entities, KC and HMC, agree to accept service of the Complaint and to waive the formalities of service under Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 4(d) and not assert their rights under the Hague Convention for the purposes of this action only, expressly conditioned upon the terms stated below. 2. KC, KA, HMC, and HMA will serve their responses to any complaints and amended complaints on the same day. 3. The deadline for KC, KA, HMC, and HMA to respond to the complaint (Dkt. 1) will be August 19, 2021. 4. KC, KA, HMC, and HMA shall have an additional forty five (45) days to that permitted under the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure (i.e., a total of 75 days) to serve plaintiff with objections and/or responses to any and all discovery requests propounded by plaintiff in this action. The additional time will allow domestic entities, KA and HMA, to properly coordinate their responses with those of the foreign entities, KC and HMC. See order for further details and deadlines. (lom) (Entered: 07/13/2021)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 07/07/2021
  • View Court Documents
  • Docket(#42) NOTICE of Related Case(s) filed by defendants Hyundai Motor America, Inc., Hyundai Motor Company, Kia America, Inc., Kia Corporation. Related Case(s): 8:19-cv-01069-JLS-JDE, 8:19-cv-00854-JLS-JDE, 8:20-cv-01503-JLS-ADS, 6:19-cv-00250-CEM-KRS (M.D. Fla.) (Morgan, Shon) (Entered: 07/07/2021)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 07/07/2021
  • View Court Documents
  • Docket(#41) Certificate and NOTICE of Interested Parties filed by defendants Kia America, Inc., Kia Corporation, identifying Hyundai Motor America, Hyundai Motor Company, Kia America, Inc., Kia Corporation, Robert Buettner. (Morgan, Shon) (Entered: 07/07/2021)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 07/07/2021
  • View Court Documents
  • Docket(#40) Certificate and NOTICE of Interested Parties filed by defendants Hyundai Motor America, Inc., Hyundai Motor Company, identifying Hyundai Motor America, Hyundai Motor Company, Kia America, Inc., Kia Corporation, Robert Buettner. (Morgan, Shon) (Entered: 07/07/2021)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 07/07/2021
  • View Court Documents
  • Docket(#39) Joint STIPULATION for Order Regarding Service of Process and Extension of Time filed by defendants Hyundai Motor America, Inc., Hyundai Motor Company, Kia America, Inc., Kia Corporation. (Attachments: #1 Proposed Order)(Attorney Shon Morgan added to party Hyundai Motor America, Inc.(pty:dft), Attorney Shon Morgan added to party Hyundai Motor Company(pty:dft), Attorney Shon Morgan added to party Kia America, Inc.(pty:dft), Attorney Shon Morgan added to party Kia Corporation(pty:dft))(Morgan, Shon) (Entered: 07/07/2021)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 06/28/2021
  • View Court Documents
  • Docket(#38) INITIAL STANDING ORDER FOR CASES ASSIGNED TO JUDGE JOSEPHINE L. STATON (mku) (Entered: 06/28/2021)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 06/28/2021
  • View Court Documents
  • Docket(#37) Text Only ORDER GRANTING Applications of Non-Resident Attorneys Gretchen Freeman Cappio #28 , Ryan P. McDevitt #29 , Maxwell H. Goins #30 , Adele A. Daniel #31 , Benjamin L. Bailey #32 , Jonathan D. Boggs #33 , W. Daniel "Dee" Miles, III #34 , Clay Barnett, III #35 , J. Mitch Williams #36 to Appear Pro Hac Vice on behalf of Plaintiff Robert Buettner pursuant to the Courts directive. THERE IS NO PDF DOCUMENT ASSOCIATED WITH THIS ENTRY. (mku) TEXT ONLY ENTRY (Entered: 06/28/2021)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 06/24/2021
  • View Court Documents
  • Docket(#36) APPLICATION of Non-Resident Attorney J. Mitch Williams to Appear Pro Hac Vice on behalf of Plaintiff Robert Buettner (Pro Hac Vice Fee - $500 Fee Paid, Receipt No. ACACDC-31524125) filed by Plaintiff Robert Buettner. (Attachments: #1 Exhibit Certificate of Good Standing - AL, #2 Proposed Order) (Preusch, Matthew) (Entered: 06/24/2021)

    Read MoreRead Less
25 More Docket Entries
  • 06/16/2021
  • View Court Documents
  • Docket(#10) NOTICE OF PRO HAC VICE APPLICATION DUE for Non-Resident Attorney Ryan P McDevitt on behalf of Plaintiff. A document recently filed in this case lists you as an out-of-state attorney of record. However, the Court has not been able to locate any record that you are admitted to the Bar of this Court, and you have not filed an application to appear Pro Hac Vice in this case. Accordingly, within 5 business days of the date of this notice, you must either (1) have your local counsel file an application to appear Pro Hac Vice (Form G-64) and pay the applicable fee, or (2) complete the next section of this form and return it to the court at cacd_attyadm@cacd.uscourts.gov. You have been removed as counsel of record from the docket in this case, and you will not be added back to the docket until your Pro Hac Vice status has been resolved. (et) (Entered: 06/16/2021)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 06/16/2021
  • View Court Documents
  • Docket(#9) NOTICE OF PRO HAC VICE APPLICATION DUE for Non-Resident Attorney Gretchen Freeman Cappio on behalf of Plaintiff. A document recently filed in this case lists you as an out-of-state attorney of record. However, the Court has not been able to locate any record that you are admitted to the Bar of this Court, and you have not filed an application to appear Pro Hac Vice in this case. Accordingly, within 5 business days of the date of this notice, you must either (1) have your local counsel file an application to appear Pro Hac Vice (Form G-64) and pay the applicable fee, or (2) complete the next section of this form and return it to the court at cacd_attyadm@cacd.uscourts.gov. You have been removed as counsel of record from the docket in this case, and you will not be added back to the docket until your Pro Hac Vice status has been resolved. (et) (Entered: 06/16/2021)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 06/16/2021
  • View Court Documents
  • Docket(#8) NOTICE OF PRO HAC VICE APPLICATION DUE for Non-Resident Attorney Lynn Lincoln Sarko on behalf of Plaintiff. A document recently filed in this case lists you as an out-of-state attorney of record. However, the Court has not been able to locate any record that you are admitted to the Bar of this Court, and you have not filed an application to appear Pro Hac Vice in this case. Accordingly, within 5 business days of the date of this notice, you must either (1) have your local counsel file an application to appear Pro Hac Vice (Form G-64) and pay the applicable fee, or (2) complete the next section of this form and return it to the court at cacd_attyadm@cacd.uscourts.gov. You have been removed as counsel of record from the docket in this case, and you will not be added back to the docket until your Pro Hac Vice status has been resolved. (et) (Entered: 06/16/2021)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 06/16/2021
  • View Court Documents
  • Docket(#7) NOTICE OF DEFICIENCIES in Attorney Case Opening RE: Complaint (Attorney Civil Case Opening) #1 . The following error(s) was found: No Notice of Interested Parties has been filed. A Notice of Interested Parties must be filed with every partys first appearance. See Local Rule 7.1-1. Counsel must file a Notice of Interested Parties immediately. Failure to do so may be addressed by judicial action, including sanctions. See Local Rule 83-7. (et) (Entered: 06/16/2021)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 06/16/2021
  • View Court Documents
  • Docket(#6) 21 DAY Summons Issued re Complaint (Attorney Civil Case Opening) #1 as to Defendants Hyundai Motor America, Inc., Hyundai Motor Company, Kia America, Inc., Kia Corporation. (et) (Entered: 06/16/2021)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 06/16/2021
  • View Court Documents
  • Docket(#5) NOTICE TO PARTIES OF COURT-DIRECTED ADR PROGRAM filed. (et) (Entered: 06/16/2021)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 06/16/2021
  • View Court Documents
  • Docket(#4) NOTICE OF ASSIGNMENT to District Judge Cormac J. Carney and Magistrate Judge John D. Early. (et) (Entered: 06/16/2021)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 06/15/2021
  • View Court Documents
  • Docket(#3) Request for Clerk to Issue Summons on Complaint (Attorney Civil Case Opening) #1 filed by Plaintiff Robert Buettner. (Preusch, Matthew) (Entered: 06/15/2021)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 06/15/2021
  • View Court Documents
  • Docket(#2) CIVIL COVER SHEET filed by Plaintiff Robert Buettner. (Preusch, Matthew) (Entered: 06/15/2021)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 06/15/2021
  • View Court Documents
  • Docket(#1) COMPLAINT Receipt No: ACACDC-31472152 - Fee: $402, filed by Plaintiff Robert Buettner. (Attorney Matthew J Preusch added to party Robert Buettner(pty:pla))(Preusch, Matthew) (Entered: 06/15/2021)

    Read MoreRead Less
related-case-search

Dig Deeper

Get Deeper Insights on Court Cases


Latest cases where Kia Corporation is a litigant

Latest cases where Kia America, Inc. is a litigant

Latest cases where HYUNDAI MOTOR AMERICA is a litigant

Latest cases represented by Lawyer Jonathan D. Boggs