The opinion of the court was delivered by: Samuel Der-yeghiayan, District Judge
This matter is before the court on Plaintiff Andrew Korsmo's (Plaintiff) motion for class certification. For the reasons stated below, the motion for class certification is denied.
Plaintiff alleges that in May of 2009, he purchased a Honda Certified Pre-Owned 2006 Honda Odyssey minivan (Vehicle) from Defendant McGrath Honda of Elgin (McGrath). Prior to purchasing the Vehicle, Plaintiff allegedly viewed multiple advertisements made by Defendant American Honda Motor Co., Inc. (Honda), which indicated that any car sold as part of the Honda Certified Used Car program (Program) would be a "well-maintained, late model" Honda "that met Honda's 'stringent standards' and passed Honda's 'comprehensive 150-point inspection.'" (Compl. Par. 20). Further, Honda's advertisements allegedly indicated that "Honda-trained dealer service technicians would check '[v]irtually every part of the vehicle,' including 'body condition/paint.'" (Compl. Par. 21). In addition, a dealer at McGrath allegedly represented to Plaintiff that there would be no problems with the Vehicle based on its status as a Honda certified car.
After deciding to purchase the Vehicle, Plaintiff allegedly sent his father-inlaw, Donald Allen Luedke (Luedke), to sign the paperwork and pick up the Vehicle. After he signed the paperwork, Luedke allegedly did not receive a copy of the 150-point inspection checklist, the Vehicle history report, or the title to the Vehicle. Before leaving McGrath, Luedke allegedly noticed problems with the interior of the Vehicle, and McGrath allegedly added a mat to the Vehicle to cover the problems. Luedke allegedly then drove the Vehicle home, where it allegedly sat for several weeks until Luedke received the title and registration to the Vehicle.
Plaintiff's wife allegedly took possession of the Vehicle sometime after that. While driving the Vehicle, Plaintiff's wife allegedly noticed a problem with the right front bumper, an odd noise while driving, and several other significant issues with the body of the Vehicle. Allegedly at the direction of McGrath, Plaintiff's wife took the Vehicle to another dealer for inspection, and the person who performed the inspection allegedly informed her that the Honda Certified Used Car Limited Warranty (Warranty) would not cover the damage. Plaintiff alleges that the damage on the Vehicle would have been obvious to any service technician during the 150-point inspection, and that the damage would have precluded the Vehicle from being certified. Plaintiff alleges that he called Honda to discuss the issue and that Honda would not assist him. Plaintiff also alleges that he then called McGrath to discuss the issue. An employee of McGrath allegedly indicated that he knew about the body damage and that, consistent with McGrath's usual practices, he had his mechanic touch up the body of the Vehicle. According to Plaintiff, even though the Vehicle was not properly inspected and could not have qualified as a Honda Certified Used Car under the terms of the Program, Honda refused to honor the Warranty.
Plaintiff alleges that Honda's advertisements led Plaintiff and members of the proposed class to believe that when they purchased a Honda Certified Used Car, they were "buying a like-new, manufacturer-quality vehicle with a comprehensive warranty backed by Honda, which increase[d] the value of the car." (Compl. Par. 15). Plaintiff also alleges that Honda's promotion of the Program misled consumers into believing that Honda performs, sponsors, supervises, monitors, audits, and enforces the Program. Plaintiff alleges that Honda "fails to adequately perform, supervise, monitor, and audit" the Program, and fails to stand behind the Warranty, instead leaving it to the dealers to perform inspections and certifications. (Compl. Par. 17). Plaintiff alleges that the misrepresentations made by Honda caused him and all other consumers who purchased Honda Certified Used Cars to pay more at the time of sale because they believed that Honda inspected or monitored the vehicles, that Honda oversaw the Program, and/or that Honda would stand behind the Warranty. Plaintiff includes in his complaint an Illinois Consumer Fraud and Deceptive Business Practices Act (ICFA), 815 ILCS §505/1 et seq., claim brought individually and on behalf of all persons who purchased a Honda Certified Used Car (Count I), an ICFA claim brought individually (Count II), a common law fraud claim brought individually (Count III), a Magnuson-Moss Warranty Act (MMWA), 15 U.S.C. § 2301 et seq., claim brought individually and on behalf of all persons who purchased a Honda Certified Used Car (Count IV), and an unjust enrichment claim brought individually and on behalf of all persons who purchased a Honda Certified Used Car (Count V). Plaintiff now moves for class certification of the claims brought in Counts I, IV, and V. Defendants oppose the motion.
A plaintiff can move for class certification pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23(a) (Rule 23(a)), which provides the following:
(a) Prerequisites. One or more members of a class may sue or be sued as representative parties on behalf of all members only if:
(1) the class is so numerous that joinder of all members is impracticable;
(2) there are questions of law or fact common to the class;
(3) the claims or defenses of the representative parties are typical of the claims or ...