P. 1
Press Copy -- 01-24-12 Submission With Exhibits 1-17 -- Red Actions

Press Copy -- 01-24-12 Submission With Exhibits 1-17 -- Red Actions

|Views: 60,939|Likes:
Published by Ben Popken

More info:

Published by: Ben Popken on Feb 02, 2012
Copyright:Attribution Non-commercial

Availability:

Read on Scribd mobile: iPhone, iPad and Android.
download as PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
See more
See less

05/25/2012

pdf

text

original

SC-105, Item No. 3 Heather Peters v. American Honda Motor Co., Inc., Case No.

11S02156 January 24, 2012 American Honda Motor Co., Inc. (“AHM”) appreciates the opportunity to provide the Court with additional information pertinent to the Court’s decision and provides the following response to the Court’s January 9, 2012 Memorandum of Ruling. AHM is not liable to Ms. Peters for accurately repeating the EPA fuel economy estimates in its advertising. That is especially so because the advertising said only that the vehicles would get “up to” the EPA estimates, and because Ms. Peters’ purchase decision relied on the federally mandated Monroney label with its many qualifications. In fact, many Civic Hybrid owners have responded to news of the San Diego class action and this case by writing AHM to report that their vehicles often meet or exceed the EPA fuel economy estimates. They praise the “remarkable” mileage they have achieved for years and express disappointment that broad and unfair accusations have been leveled against AHM. AHM is seeking to settle the class action to promote customer goodwill and avoid the high cost of continuing litigation. Whatever their cause, however, Ms. Peters’ asserted difficulties do not reflect any broader problem, and provide no basis for any recovery. A. The Applicable Statutes Of Limitations Ms. Peters bought her Civic Hybrid in April 2006, but did not sue AHM until more than five years later in November 2011. We agree with Ms. Peters that the applicable statutes of limitations on her claims range from two to four years. Under the “discovery rule,” which applies to her claims for intentional misrepresentation (C.C.P. § 338(d)), “[t]he statute of limitations begins to run when the plaintiff suspects or should suspect that his or her injury was caused by wrongdoing—when the plaintiff has notice of information or circumstances that would put a reasonable person on inquiry.” San Francisco Unified Sch. Dist. v. W.R. Grace & Co.— Conn. (1995) 37 Cal.App.4th 1318, 1326. Within a few months after she bought the vehicle in April 2006, Ms. Peters was aware of the allegedly deficient performance, and thus should have suspected the type of wrongdoing she now alleges. The statute of limitations on some of her claims may have been tolled, however, under the doctrine enunciated in American Pipe & Construction Co. v. Utah (1974) 414 U.S. 538, 552–556 (as limited in Jolly v. Eli Lilly & Co. (1988) 44 Cal.3d 1103, 1118-26, and San Francisco Unified, 37 Cal.App.4th at 1336-41). B. Ms. Peters’ Claims Relating To The EPA Mileage Estimates Are Barred By The Doctrine Of Laches

Regardless of American Pipe, however, Ms. Peters’ mileage-based claims are untimely under the doctrine of laches. “The defense of laches is derived from the maxim that the law helps the vigilant, before those who sleep on their rights. Cal. Civ. Code § 3527.” In re Marriage of Plescia (1997) 59 Cal.App.4th 252, 256 (1997). That defense “requires unreasonable delay plus either acquiescence in the act about which plaintiff complains or prejudice to the defendant resulting from the delay.” Calif. School Employees Ass’n v. Tustin Unified School Dist. (2007) 148 Cal.App.4th 510, 521. Ms. Peters has slept on her rights. Although she now claims to have sustained substantial damages, Ms. Peters did not raise any issues with AHM until over five years after purchasing her car. Rather, she enjoyed all the benefits of ownership for that time, during which her warranties expired on almost all components other than the IMA battery. The battery has several remaining years on its warranty (a warranty that will be extended an additional year for class members if the proposed settlement now under consideration in San Diego receives final approval).

Peters v. AHM -- 01-24-12 Attachment to Form SC-105, Item No. 3 Case No. 11S02156 - Honda’s Response to Issues Raised in 01-09-12 Order

SC-105, Item No. 3 Heather Peters v. American Honda Motor Co., Inc., Case No. 11S02156 January 24, 2012 Furthermore, while Ms. Peters now claims to reject the proposed San Diego settlement, only two years ago she was willing to participate in a proposed settlement that provided less in benefits to class members than the current settlement. Ms. Peters’ mileage claims were encompassed by the proposed settlement of True v. American Honda Motor Co., No. EDCV 07– 0287–VAP (OPx) (C.D. Cal.); see 749 F.Supp.2d 1052 (C.D. Cal. 2010). Peters was aware of her mileage issues long before that action was filed on March 9, 2007, and still longer before the True court entered its preliminary approval of a proposed settlement and certification of a settlement class on August 27, 2009. See id. at 1058. There is no evidence, however, that Peters either objected to or intended to opt out of that settlement, even though the terms of that settlement were less favorable than those now under consideration in San Diego. See id. at 1061; id at 1060 (noting that class members had an opportunity to opt out). If Ms. Peters truly had a legitimate separate claim, she should have opted out in 2010 rather than waiting yet another year until the carpool lane privileges for her hybrid vehicle expired. See www.arb.ca.gov/carpool.htm. Ms. Peters’ long delay in making her individual claims, however, has prejudiced AHM’s ability to defend against her stale claims. She did not bring her vehicle in to address her current complaints during its 3-year warranty period when she claims to have had poor mileage. And she did not give AHM (rather than Honda dealers who are separate entities independent of AHM) a chance to inspect her vehicle to determine whether there was a problem with it and what exactly the problem might be. Her action should be dismissed on that basis. C. Ms. Peters Has Abandoned Her CLRA Claim Ms. Peters indicated in her January 11, 2012 submission that she is no longer making a claim under the California Consumers Legal Remedies Act (“CLRA”). See Peters’ Jan. 11, 2012 Request for Court Order and Answer, first attachment page. Accordingly, Ms. Peters is limited to the narrower remedies available under her remaining claims. D. AHM Is Not Liable For Its Statements Repeating EPA Mileage Estimates

1. No misrepresentation. All of Ms. Peters’ claims require her to prove a misrepresentation, but she has not proved any deception here. Ms. Peters cannot base any claims for liability on the supposedly deceptive or inaccurate nature of AHM’s representations that the 2006 Civic Hybrid would get “up to” the mileage per gallon (mpg) in the EPA estimates. See Paduano v. American Honda Motor Co. (2009) 169 Cal.App.4th 1453. Her “warranty claims fail” outright. Id. at 1467. “[I]t is clear that the EPA mileage estimate does not constitute a warranty.” Id. (citing 49 U.S.C. § 32908(d)). “[T]o the extent that Honda identified the EPA fuel economy estimates in the Monroney sticker and reiterated those EPA mileage estimates in its own advertising, Honda’s provision of those estimates does not constitute an independent warranty that [Peters]’s vehicle would achieve the EPA fuel economy estimates or a similar level of fuel economy.” Id. Moreover, “[a]s a matter of law, there is nothing false or misleading about Honda's advertising with regard to its statements that identify the EPA fuel economy estimates for the two Civic Hybrid models.” Id. at 1470. It is true that a 2-1 majority of the Paduano court held that there were triable issues of fact as to whether certain statements in the vehicle advertising 2
Peters v. AHM -- 01-24-12 Attachment to Form SC-105, Item No. 3 Case No. 11S02156 - Honda’s Response to Issues Raised in 01-09-12 Order

SC-105, Item No. 3 Heather Peters v. American Honda Motor Co., Inc., Case No. 11S02156 January 24, 2012 brochure at issue in Paduano regarding the similarities between driving a hybrid and driving a conventional car might be misleading to the extent they purportedly implied that a driver would achieve all possible fuel savings without altering individual driving habits. Peters, however, does not raise similar brochure-based claims here. Paduano involved the brochure for the 2004 Civic Hybrid. The brochure for Ms. Peters’ 2006 Civic Hybrid did not include the statements in the 2004 brochure that were held to be potentially actionable in Paduano: “Just drive the Hybrid like you would a conventional car, while saving on fuel bills” (id. at 1470-71 (majority)) and the question-answer combination: “IS THERE ANYTHING SPECIAL I HAVE TO DO? You just have to love saving money and getting terrific gas mileage” (id. at 1472). Rather, the 2006 brochure made no statements that might be viewed as raising an implicit connection between “normal” driving and fuel economy in the same way. The 2006 brochure said only “So you can just enjoy driving the hybrid like you would a conventional gasoline-engine vehicle,” without any nexus to fuel economy. See Ex. 1, at 10. Ms. Peters has suggested no other way in which the brochure was misleading. And here the question is not whether a hypothetical fact finder might find any statements misleading; this Court is the fact finder here. In that regard, the Paduano majority was careful to note that it did “not intend to imply that Paduano will be meritorious [sic] in this action.” 169 Cal.App.4th at 1473 & n.13. It is clear on this record that many Civic Hybrid drivers met or exceeded the EPA estimates—just as would be expected for estimates that are the mid-point of a range within which (as the Monroney sticker explained) a “majority” of drivers’ actual mileage would fall. The statements in the 2006 were not misleading. 2. No reliance. To recover on an individual basis for misrepresentation under the UCL or FAL, or under the Civil Code actions for intentional or negligent misrepresentation, Ms. Peters must show that she justifiably relied on the alleged misrepresentations. In re Tobacco II Cases (2009) 46 Cal.4th 298, 326 (reliance required for standing under UCL/FAL); Engalla v. Permanente Med. Gp. (1997) 15 Cal.4th 951, 974 (reliance required for fraud); Garcia v. Superior Court (1990) 50 Cal.3d 728, 737 (negligent misrepresentation). The evidence shows, to the contrary, that Ms. Peters did not rely on what she now claims are misleading statements in the product brochure and elsewhere, and that she could not reasonably have done so. She admits that she scrutinized the Monroney sticker on the vehicle she bought and that she relied on the Monroney sticker as well as statements made by the dealership. That sticker not only presented the 49 mpg and 51 mpg EPA mileage estimates, but provided two strong qualifications. See Ex. 2. First, the sticker warned that “ACTUAL MILEAGE will vary with options, driving conditions, driving habits, and vehicle’s condition” (boldface upper case emphasis in original, italics added)—the very “will vary” statement she claims was concealed. Second, the sticker said that “a majority of vehicles with these estimates will achieve between 41 and 57 mpg in the city and between 43 and 59 mpg on the highway,” strongly suggesting that many vehicles—as many as 49%—might have mileage outside these ranges. In addition, the advertising copy in the brochure she cites said that the vehicle she bought could get “up to 50 mpg during city driving” (Ex. 1, at 8 (emphasis added)), and referred the reader to the familiar qualifications on such figures: “use for comparison purposes only. Your mileage may vary.” Id. at 15 n.4. Her claims to have relied on the EPA mpg estimate strain credulity past the breaking point. 3
Peters v. AHM -- 01-24-12 Attachment to Form SC-105, Item No. 3 Case No. 11S02156 - Honda’s Response to Issues Raised in 01-09-12 Order

SC-105, Item No. 3 Heather Peters v. American Honda Motor Co., Inc., Case No. 11S02156 January 24, 2012 3. Federal preemption. Any effort to hold AHM liable for the Monroney sticker attached to the Peters’ vehicle would be preempted by federal law. In other words, the apparently principal source of information relied upon by Ms. Peters—the last information about fuel economy she saw before deciding to buy—cannot serve as the basis for any claim by her. 49 U.S.C. §32919(b) declares (emphasis added): Requirements must be identical.—When a requirement under section 32908 of this title is in effect, a State or a political subdivision of a State may adopt or enforce a law or regulation on disclosure of fuel economy or fuel operating costs for an automobile covered by section 32908 only if the law or regulation is identical to that requirement. Ms. Peters claims that AHM should have made additional disclosures about factors that would affect the mileage an individual driver would achieve, or that it should have provided some other mileage estimate. No plausible reading of Section 32908, however, requires a manufacturer to qualify or modify the fuel economy estimates calculated and approved by the EPA in its advertising or any other disclosure, nor is there any basis at all for suggesting that such qualifications could be or should be included on the Monroney sticker. To the contrary, the FTC Guide Concerning Fuel Economy Advertising for New Automobiles requires manufacturers to use the EPA fuel economy estimates as the most prominent mileage figure in any advertisement that makes “any express or implied representation in advertising concerning the fuel economy of any new automobile.” 16 C.F.R. § 259.2(a); see id. §§ 259.1(b)-(c), 259.2. The FTC warns that “[f]ailure to comply with the guides may result in corrective action by the Commission under applicable statutory provisions.” 16 C.F.R. § 1.5.1 Moreover, the EPA regulations did not explicitly enable manufacturers to request permission to lower estimates until well after Ms. Peters purchased her vehicle. See 40 C.F.R. § 600.210-08(a); see 71 Fed. Reg. 77872, 77872, 77946-47 (Dec. 27. 2006) (adding § 600.21008 and noting effective date for 2008 model year). The quote from an unidentified EPA official that Ms. Peters included in her January 11 submission does not address this timing. 49 U.S.C. § 32919(b), however, precludes a state from imposing a different legal requirement whether through legislation or adjudication. See Blanco v. Baxter Healthcare Corp. (2008) 158 Cal.App.4th 1039, 1055 (“a jury verdict in favor of [plaintiff] . . . would impose a state requirement on [defendant] … different from the FDA requirements”) (applying similarly worded preemption provision in 21 U.S.C. § 360k). Addressing a similar clause forbidding state By contrast, the FTC Guide sharply restricts any advertisement of fuel economy estimates from other sources. Manufacturers may advertise “[f]uel economy estimates derived from a non-EPA test” (16 C.F.R. § 259.2(c)) only if the “advertisement also discloses the “estimated city mpg and/or the estimated highway mpg,” “gives the [EPA] figure substantially more prominence than any other estimate” (id. § 259.2(c)(1)), identifies the “source of the nonEPA test” and explains “clearly and conspicuously” the “driving conditions and variables … which differ from those used [in the EPA test] and which result in a change in fuel economy” (id. § 259.2(c)(3) (emphasis added)). 4
Peters v. AHM -- 01-24-12 Attachment to Form SC-105, Item No. 3 Case No. 11S02156 - Honda’s Response to Issues Raised in 01-09-12 Order
1

SC-105, Item No. 3 Heather Peters v. American Honda Motor Co., Inc., Case No. 11S02156 January 24, 2012 requirements “in addition to, or different than” federal slaughterhouse regulations, a unanimous Supreme Court this week rejected an effort by California to impose “new rules, beyond any the [federal agency] has chosen to adopt.” National Meat Ass’n v. Harris (Jan. 23, 2012) -- S.Ct. --, 2012 WL 171119, at *5. The Paduano court recognized that the preemption provision encompasses any state legal rule that would “not require a manufacturer to provide a fuel estimate different from the EPA fuel economy estimate” (169 Cal.App.4th at 1482), and permitted state claims to go forward only as to “statements Honda has made outside of the scope of the Monroney label” that went “beyond … mere reiteration of the EPA's estimated fuel economy in its advertising.” Id. at 1485. Moreover, using state-law principles to require manufacturers to qualify or disavow the EPA mileage estimates would undermine the whole federal purpose in requiring the use of those estimates: to provide a consistent benchmark for consumers to compare the fuel economy of different vehicles. See EPA Final Rule, Fuel Economy Labeling of Motor Vehicles: Revisions To Improve Calculation of Fuel Economy Estimates (Dec. 27, 2006) 71 Fed. Reg. 77872, 77874 (“The EPA estimates are meant to be a general guideline for consumers, particularly to compare the relative fuel economy of one vehicle to another.”). Indeed, the Federal Trade Commission Guide on automobile advertising (16 C.F.R. § 259.2) requires the use of EPA fuel economy estimates in all fuel economy advertising precisely in order “to prevent deceptive fuel economy advertising and to facilitate the use of fuel economy information in advertising.” Request for Public Comment (May 9, 2007) 72 Fed. Reg. 26328, 26328 (emphasis added). E. The Ability Of Other Owners To Achieve or Exceed The EPA Fuel Economy Estimates Shows That Those Estimates Are Not Misleading And That Ms. Peters’ Claimed Poor Mileage Results From Her Driving Patterns Or The Condition Of Her Vehicle

As many owners have made clear, the Civic Hybrid is fully capable of achieving the EPA Fuel Economy estimates. In response to a radio report about this lawsuit, a listener told NPR that he consistently averaged 50 mpg or better with his Civic Hybrid. Ex. 3. In response to similar reports about this action and the class notice for the San Diego case, hundreds of Civic Hybrid owners have submitted unsolicited letters to AHM taking issue with the allegations of both lawsuits. See, e.g., Exs. 4-9 (sealed), 10, 11 (sealed).2 Many of these Civic Hybrid owners have reported materially exceeding the EPA estimates. See, e.g., Exs. 5-7. Some of these owners have reflected on other well-known causes of reduced fuel economy, such as hill or mountain driving, aggressive driving, a high proportion of stop-and-go driving, carrying heavy loads, using oil additives or the wrong weight of motor oil clogged filters, underinflated tires, tires with softer rubber, and improper wheel alignment—all factors outside AHM’s control.. See, e.g., Exs. 4, 6, 7, 10. The Monroney label attached to Ms. Peters’ vehicle made the same point that the mileage achieved by any individual consumer on any particular trip will depend on a number of variables,

Because these documents contain the names, addresses and other private information of the persons who prepared and submitted them, they are being filed under seal per the instructions of the Small Claims Advisor. They will, however, be made available for inspection by Ms. Peters at the January 25, 2012 hearing. 5
Peters v. AHM -- 01-24-12 Attachment to Form SC-105, Item No. 3 Case No. 11S02156 - Honda’s Response to Issues Raised in 01-09-12 Order

2

SC-105, Item No. 3 Heather Peters v. American Honda Motor Co., Inc., Case No. 11S02156 January 24, 2012 including driving conditions, how the car is driven and whether the car has been properly maintained. See Ex. 2. Because many other owners have achieved fuel economy in line with the EPA estimates, Ms. Peters has not shown that the estimates are inaccurate, much less that AHM’s repetition of the estimates was intentionally misleading. Ms. Peters’ past shortfall in mileage is certainly attributable primarily if not exclusively to her driving patterns. No matter what vehicle she drives, her driving style and habits will result in mileage lower than the EPA estimates by approximately the same proportion. F. AHM Cannot Be Held Responsible For What Independent Third Parties Said Or Did

AHM’s dealers are independent businesses over which AHM itself has very little control. Accordingly, there is no basis for holding AHM liable for what AHM’s dealers said or did vis-àvis Ms. Peters, and she has suggested none. Like most consumers, however, Ms. Peters relied upon statements made by her dealer regarding the fuel economy of her Civic Hybrid, and she likewise relied upon her dealer to diagnose and address her complaints following the installation of the PUD in her vehicle in September 2010. See Ex. 12. For its part, AHM did not have an opportunity to diagnose or inspect Ms. Peters’ vehicle (in spite of several requests, see Ex. 13), and it had no control over what third parties represented to her regarding fuel economy. Thus, AHM cannot be held liable for the failure of her dealership to diagnose any problem with her vehicle. Ms. Peters’ offer to allow her vehicle to be inspected by AHM dealers’ personnel rather than by AHM was meaningless. She is suing AHM, not a dealer. G. Ms. Peters Has Not Proven Any Entitlement To Damages It is a “fundamental rule that damages which are speculative, remote, imaginary, contingent, or merely possible cannot serve as a legal basis for recovery.” Goehring v. Chapman University (2004) 121 Cal.App.4th 353, 367 (internal quotation marks omitted). Rather, evidence of damages must be “reasonable, credible and of solid value.” Roddenberry v. Roddenberry (1996) 44 Cal.App.4th 634, 651. And while “[i]nferences may constitute substantial evidence, … they must be the product of logic and reason. Speculation or conjecture alone is not substantial evidence.” Id. Ms. Peters’ damage demands lack support. She claims thousands of dollars in damages for what she claims was the difference in price between a Civic Hybrid and a non-hybrid Civic LX, and also for what she claims was a “hybrid premium.” But her price comparison added tax and registration to the Civic Hybrid but not to the LX, and excludes the value of the navigation system and other features that would have cost extra on an LX. She likewise does not deny that she received a hybrid vehicle, with the high-occupancy-vehicle privileges and status that attended hybrid ownership. Indeed, she was eligible for $2,100 in government rebates that were available only for hybrid purchases (see http://www.irs.gov/newsroom/article/0,,id=176418,00.html), and the value of 5 years of HOV lane access commanded a premium of $5,000 in the open market. See Ex. 13. Because she got the vehicle she paid for—including more than $9,500 in hybrid-specific benefits separate from actual fuel economy—any damages would have to be measured in some other way. And that doesn’t take into account the differential fuel savings over what Ms. Peters would have achieved with an LX. See Exs. 14 & 15 In addition, prejudgment interest is not available on these 6
Peters v. AHM -- 01-24-12 Attachment to Form SC-105, Item No. 3 Case No. 11S02156 - Honda’s Response to Issues Raised in 01-09-12 Order

SC-105, Item No. 3 Heather Peters v. American Honda Motor Co., Inc., Case No. 11S02156 January 24, 2012 unliquidated claims, see Civ. Code § 3287, nor would any discretionary award of interest under Civil Code § 3288 be proper here in light of the many benefits of ownership Ms. Peters has enjoyed for 5-1/2 years. Ms. Peters also claims without evidence that her resale value is reduced because of an unidentified “stigma.” The $5,208 figure she proposes is conjectural (and facially exorbitant for a 6-year-old vehicle)—as is the notion that she will sell the vehicle at any given time. It is also inconsistent with her effort to claim even greater damages of $8200 in “future increased gas cost” (after supposedly incurring only $1,110 in increased gas cost in the 5-1/2 years she has actually owned the vehicle). Either she is selling the car or she is keeping it—not both. And this figure is vastly outweighed by the hybrid-specific benefits she enjoyed for years. Her exorbitant claim for increased fuel costs is also unproved and legally insupportable. Because these sums were not paid to AHM, this relief would amount to damages rather than restitutionary relief, “something that is not permitted under the UCL” or the identically worded remedial provisions of the FAL. See Korea Supply Co. v. Lockheed Martin Corp. (2003) 29 Cal.4th 1134, 1150-51; see id. at 1149 (restitution limited to “the return of money or property that was once in [plaintiff’s] possession” or in which plaintiff has a “vested interest”). Ms. Peters provides no gas receipts and scant records of maintenance, so sparse that they suggest that any lowered mileage she experienced resulted from inadequate care of the vehicle. Particularly speculative are her future claimed gas costs, which are 8 times those she claims to have accrued in the past 5-1/2 years. There is no legal basis to provide differential gas costs for decades into the future, when the express warranty on most systems in her vehicle has long since expired and the 10-year/150,000-mile warranty on her IMA battery will expire in April 2016. Having logged only 48,361 miles in 67 months through December 2011, she provides no reason to believe that she would drive more than 40,000 miles in the 53 months through April 2016. Yet her $8200 damages claim assumes that she would log 150,000 more miles in that period. That inflated figure—which at her current driving rates assumes that she would own the vehicle for 25 years—does not pass the requirement that future damages be proved with “reasonable certainty.” Behr v. Redmond (2011) 193 Cal.App.4th 517, 533. Indeed, “no reasonable interpretation of the record supports” the assumptions about her driving and seemingly perpetual continued ownership, rendering her damages figure “wholly conjectural.” Toscano v. Green Music (2004) 124 Cal.App.4th 685, 691, 696. In addition, Ms. Peters’ evidence does not show that her vehicle performed below standard. She claims that her mileage in the first several years of ownership was in the low 40s, within the range set forth for the “majority” of vehicles on the Monroney sticker on her vehicle (Ex. 2): 41 mpg or more in city driving and 43 mpg or more in highway driving. But the maximum possible shortfall should be measured against no higher figure than the 41 mpg figure attributed on the Monroney sticker to the majority of vehicles. After the PUD. she asserts that her mileage dropped to the low 30s. Although (as Mr. Schmidt has explained) so steep a decline cannot possibly be related to the PUD—indeed, the PUD had no effect on EPA label mileage at all—that mileage also should be evaluated against the 41 mpg at the low end of the expected range using the earlier testing methods. Any such differential would have to be 7
Peters v. AHM -- 01-24-12 Attachment to Form SC-105, Item No. 3 Case No. 11S02156 - Honda’s Response to Issues Raised in 01-09-12 Order

SC-105, Item No. 3 Heather Peters v. American Honda Motor Co., Inc., Case No. 11S02156 January 24, 2012 applied based on her actual historic miles driven annually. It is mere guesswork to determine how long Ms. Peters would keep her vehicle, and how long the vehicle would last at the rate of approximately 8000 miles driven annually. If any future damages could be awarded, however they should not extend beyond the expiration of her extended battery warranty in April 2016. But that figure also should be adjusted for the 2.5 cents per mile she saved by purchasing a Civic Hybrid rather than an LX, along with the tax and HOV-lane benefits she enjoyed. Ms. Peters’ claim for IMA battery replacement costs is also unjustified. She has incurred no such expense and provides no basis to anticipate that she will incur it. Her 10-year battery warranty remains in effect until April 2016. Indeed, if she participates in the class settlement, she would receive a one-year, 12, 000 mile extension of that warranty. Finally, although Ms. Peters has claimed entitlement to punitive damages, she cannot get that relief here. “Small claims courts do not provide the panoply of relief available in court …, such as punitive damages and attorney fees.” Aral v. Earthlink, Inc. (2005) 134 Cal.App.4th 534, 562. In any event, she has provided no basis for an award of punitive damages, which is available only upon “clear and convincing evidence … of oppression, fraud, or malice.” Civ. Code § 3294. Punitive damages are not available for her statutory claims, which permit only restitutionary or injunctive relief (Bus. & Prof. Code §§ 17203, 17535; see Chin v. Advanced Fresh Concepts Franchise Corp. (2011) 194 Cal.App.4th 704, 712 & n.3), or for her negligent misrepresentation claim (see Alliance Mortgage Co. v. Rothwell (1995) 10 Cal.4th 1226, 1241). And Ms. Peters has not proven any type of intentional misconduct, much less misconduct that exceeds the normal range of reprehensibility in any tort. In order to maintain the distinction between liability for punitive damages and liability for the underlying tort, “‘[p]unitive damages should not be allowable upon evidence that is merely consistent with the hypothesis of malice, fraud, gross negligence or oppressiveness.’” Food Pro Int’l, Inc. v. Farmers Ins. Exch. (2008) 169 Cal.App.4th 976, 994 (quoting Tomaselli v. Transamerica Ins. Co. (1994) 25 Cal.App.4th 1269, 1288 n.14) (emphasis added). Instead, “‘some evidence should be required that is inconsistent with the hypothesis that the tortious conduct was the result of a mistake of law or fact, honest error of judgment, over-zealousness, mere negligence or other such noniniquitous human failing.’” Id. (emphasis added). Conclusion Ms. Peters has proved neither liability nor damages, and thus has provided no basis for any award in this action. At most, this Court should award Peters what she would have received as part of the class settlement in San Diego. In a November 18, 2011 e-mail to lead plaintiffs’ class counsel Nick Chimicles, Ms. Peters said “you guys negotiated one of the best class action settlements I’ve ever seen.” Ex. 17. Even if the Court does not want to put her in a worse position than other class members, she should not emerge from this stale and meritless action in a better position. AHM thanks the Court for allowing us to provide this comprehensive brief.

8
Peters v. AHM -- 01-24-12 Attachment to Form SC-105, Item No. 3 Case No. 11S02156 - Honda’s Response to Issues Raised in 01-09-12 Order

Exhibits to SC-105, Item No. 3 Heather Peters v. American Honda Motor Co., Inc., Case No. 11S02156 January 24, 2012 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. 9. 10. 11. 12. 13. 14. 15. 16. 17. 2006 Honda Civic Hybrid Brochure 2006 Honda Civic Hybrid Monroney label NPR Transcript of January 11, 2012 Broadcast concerning Letter from R. Godley Filed Under Seal -- Anderson Opt-Out Form Filed Under Sea -- Blake Opt-Out Form Filed Under Seal -- Babcock Opt-Out Form Filed Under Seal -- Hemsley Opt-Out FOrm Filed Under Seal -- Galazia Opt-Out Form Filed Under Seal -- Garbinicius Opt-Out Form January 7, 2011 Letter from R. Stefenel to American Honda Filed Under Seal -- Compilation of Opt-Outs and Other Letters Peters Service / Dealer Complaint Records E-mails to and from H. Peters and M. Mester Article -- How Much is a Carpool Sticker Worth These Days? Article -- Is It Worth The Money? Honda Civic Vs. Honda Civic Hybrid Article -- Honda Civic EX versus Honda Civic Hybrid Fuel Mileage Comparo Article E-mails to and from H. Peters and N. Chimicles

Peters v. AHM -- Index of Exhibits to 01-24-12 Attachment to Form SC-105, Item No. 3 Case No. 11S02156 -- Honda’s Response to Issues Raised in 01-09-12 Order

IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES SMALL CLAIMS CENTER - TORRANCE HEATHER PETERS, Plaintiff, v. AMERICAN HONDA MOTOR CO., INC., Defendant. ) ) ) ) ) ) )

Case No. 11S02156 Commissioner Douglas G. Carnahan

EXHIBIT 1 TO AMERICAN HONDA’S JANUARY 24, 2012 SUBMISSION

Peters v. AHM -- Exhibit 1 -- Page 1 of 38

Peters v. AHM -- Exhibit 1 -- Page 2 of 38

Peters v. AHM -- Exhibit 1 -- Page 3 of 38

Peters v. AHM -- Exhibit 1 -- Page 4 of 38

Peters v. AHM -- Exhibit 1 -- Page 5 of 38

Peters v. AHM -- Exhibit 1 -- Page 6 of 38

Peters v. AHM -- Exhibit 1 -- Page 7 of 38

Peters v. AHM -- Exhibit 1 -- Page 8 of 38

Peters v. AHM -- Exhibit 1 -- Page 9 of 38

Peters v. AHM -- Exhibit 1 -- Page 10 of 38

Peters v. AHM -- Exhibit 1 -- Page 11 of 38

Peters v. AHM -- Exhibit 1 -- Page 12 of 38

Peters v. AHM -- Exhibit 1 -- Page 13 of 38

Peters v. AHM -- Exhibit 1 -- Page 14 of 38

Peters v. AHM -- Exhibit 1 -- Page 15 of 38

Peters v. AHM -- Exhibit 1 -- Page 16 of 38

Peters v. AHM -- Exhibit 1 -- Page 17 of 38

Peters v. AHM -- Exhibit 1 -- Page 18 of 38

Peters v. AHM -- Exhibit 1 -- Page 19 of 38

Peters v. AHM -- Exhibit 1 -- Page 20 of 38

Peters v. AHM -- Exhibit 1 -- Page 21 of 38

Peters v. AHM -- Exhibit 1 -- Page 22 of 38

Peters v. AHM -- Exhibit 1 -- Page 23 of 38

Peters v. AHM -- Exhibit 1 -- Page 24 of 38

Peters v. AHM -- Exhibit 1 -- Page 25 of 38

Peters v. AHM -- Exhibit 1 -- Page 26 of 38

Peters v. AHM -- Exhibit 1 -- Page 27 of 38

Peters v. AHM -- Exhibit 1 -- Page 28 of 38

Peters v. AHM -- Exhibit 1 -- Page 29 of 38

Peters v. AHM -- Exhibit 1 -- Page 30 of 38

Peters v. AHM -- Exhibit 1 -- Page 31 of 38

Peters v. AHM -- Exhibit 1 -- Page 32 of 38

Peters v. AHM -- Exhibit 1 -- Page 33 of 38

Peters v. AHM -- Exhibit 1 -- Page 34 of 38

Peters v. AHM -- Exhibit 1 -- Page 35 of 38

Peters v. AHM -- Exhibit 1 -- Page 36 of 38

Peters v. AHM -- Exhibit 1 -- Page 37 of 38

Peters v. AHM -- Exhibit 1 -- Page 38 of 38

IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES SMALL CLAIMS CENTER - TORRANCE HEATHER PETERS, Plaintiff, v. AMERICAN HONDA MOTOR CO., INC., Defendant. ) ) ) ) ) ) )

Case No. 11S02156 Commissioner Douglas G. Carnahan

EXHIBIT 2 TO AMERICAN HONDA’S JANUARY 24, 2012 SUBMISSION

Peters v. AHM -- Exhibit 2 -- Page 1 of 1

IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES SMALL CLAIMS CENTER - TORRANCE HEATHER PETERS, Plaintiff, v. AMERICAN HONDA MOTOR CO., INC., Defendant. ) ) ) ) ) ) )

Case No. 11S02156 Commissioner Douglas G. Carnahan

EXHIBIT 3 TO AMERICAN HONDA’S JANUARY 24, 2012 SUBMISSION

Letters: Sharia Law, Honda, Snowy Owl : NPR

Page 1 of 2

Letters: Sharia Law, Honda, Snowy Owl
January 11, 2012 Melissa Block and Audie Cornish read letters from listeners.
text size A

A A

Copyright © 2012 National Public Radio®. For personal, noncommercial use only. See Terms of Use. For other uses, prior permission required.

AUDIE CORNISH, HOST: It's time for your letters and a correction. Yesterday, we reported that 70 percent of Oklahomans passed an amendment to their state constitution barring courts from the recognizing Sharia Law. What we meant to say was 70 percent of voters in Oklahoma passed that amendment. Our mistake. MELISSA BLOCK, HOST: Last week, we brought you news of a California woman who's suing the automaker Honda in small claims court. Heather Peters, of Los Angeles, says her 2006 Civic Hybrid falls far short of the 50 miles per gallon promised by the car dealer. So she's asking for $10,000. Our story also mentioned that the automaker faces a class-action suit brought by other similarly disgruntled Civic Hybrid owners. CORNISH: Well, listener Robert Godley(ph) of Lothian, Maryland, also owns the 2006 Civic Hybrid and he felt compelled to write in. After logging 147,000 miles, he says, he's pleased to report that his hybrid has consistently averaged the promised 50 miles per gallon, and at times even better. BLOCK: He writes this: I once drove from Lynchburg, Virginia to Oswego, New York on a single 12 gallon tank of gas - a rate better than 56 miles per gallon, over mountains and at interstate speeds. Like those suing Honda, Godley did notice a drop in performance after a system upgrade. But he still calls the car one of the best investments he's ever made. CORNISH: On Monday's program, we spoke about the snowy owl. Typically at home in the Arctic tundra, it has been increasingly spotted in the Lower 48. Jim McCormac, a biologist with the Ohio Division of Wildlife, told us the reason is believed to be a superabundance of lemmings in the Arctic, a staple of the snowy owl's diet. JIM MCCORMAC: There are so many lemmings that the owls in a response will lay more eggs, so there's a lot more young owls. And so, there's not enough food to get through the winter, so a lot of them come south. CORNISH: And with a wing span up to five feet, a snowy owl can be a pretty impressive sight. MCCORMAC: I mean, just imagine if you're a kid and you're into "Harry Potter," now you get to see Hedwig in the flesh, sitting out in the field. People who really don't even have that much interest in birds are going ape over these things. (SOUNDBITE OF "HARRY POTTER" THEME)

http://www npr.org/2012/01/11/145055090/letters-sharia-law-honda-snowy-owl

1/15/2012

Peters v. AHM -- Exhibit 3 -- Page 1 of 2

Letters: Sharia Law, Honda, Snowy Owl : NPR

Page 2 of 2

BLOCK: Well, Lizabeth Ewing(ph) of Bloomington, Indiana, heard that interview on her commute home. And about 30 minutes later, she writes: The coolest thing happened as I was exiting the highway to head home. A large snowy owl swooped in front of my car within a couple of feet of my windshield. Talk about perfect timing. CORNISH: Thanks for sharing and keep the letters coming. Just go to NPR.org and click on Contact Us at the bottom of the page.
Copyright © 2012 National Public Radio®. All rights reserved. No quotes from the materials contained herein may be used in any media without attribution to National Public Radio. This transcript is provided for personal, noncommercial use only, pursuant to our Terms of Use. Any other use requires NPR's prior permission. Visit our permissions page for further information. NPR transcripts are created on a rush deadline by a contractor for NPR, and accuracy and availability may vary. This text may not be in its final form and may be updated or revised in the future. Please be aware that the authoritative record of NPR's programming is the audio.

http://www npr.org/2012/01/11/145055090/letters-sharia-law-honda-snowy-owl

1/15/2012

Peters v. AHM -- Exhibit 3 -- Page 2 of 2

IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES SMALL CLAIMS CENTER - TORRANCE HEATHER PETERS, Plaintiff, v. AMERICAN HONDA MOTOR CO., INC., Defendant. ) ) ) ) ) ) )

Case No. 11S02156 Commissioner Douglas G. Carnahan

FILED UNDER SEAL EXHIBIT 4 TO AMERICAN HONDA’S JANUARY 24, 2012 SUBMISSION

Redacted Redacted
Redacted

Redacted

Redacted

Redacted

Redacted

Redacted
Redacted

Redacted
Redacted

Redacted

Redacted

Redacted

Redacted

Redacted

IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES SMALL CLAIMS CENTER - TORRANCE HEATHER PETERS, Plaintiff, v. AMERICAN HONDA MOTOR CO., INC., Defendant. ) ) ) ) ) ) )

Case No. 11S02156 Commissioner Douglas G. Carnahan

FILED UNDER SEAL EXHIBIT 5 TO AMERICAN HONDA’S JANUARY 24, 2012 SUBMISSION

Redacted
Redacted

Redacted
Redacted
Redacted

Redacted

Redacted

Redacted

Redacted

Redacted

Redacted
Redacted

Redacted

IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES SMALL CLAIMS CENTER - TORRANCE HEATHER PETERS, Plaintiff, v. AMERICAN HONDA MOTOR CO., INC., Defendant. ) ) ) ) ) ) )

Case No. 11S02156 Commissioner Douglas G. Carnahan

FILED UNDER SEAL EXHIBIT 6 TO AMERICAN HONDA’S JANUARY 24, 2012 SUBMISSION

Redacted
Redacted
Redacted

Redacted

Redacted

Redacted

Redacted
Redacted

Redacted

Redacted

Redacted
Redacted

Redacted

IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES SMALL CLAIMS CENTER - TORRANCE HEATHER PETERS, Plaintiff, v. AMERICAN HONDA MOTOR CO., INC., Defendant. ) ) ) ) ) ) )

Case No. 11S02156 Commissioner Douglas G. Carnahan

FILED UNDER SEAL EXHIBIT 7 TO AMERICAN HONDA’S JANUARY 24, 2012 SUBMISSION

Redacted Redacted Redacted

Redacted

Redacted

Redacted
Redacted

Redacted

Redacted

Redacted

Redacted

Redacted

IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES SMALL CLAIMS CENTER - TORRANCE HEATHER PETERS, Plaintiff, v. AMERICAN HONDA MOTOR CO., INC., Defendant. ) ) ) ) ) ) )

Case No. 11S02156 Commissioner Douglas G. Carnahan

FILED UNDER SEAL EXHIBIT 8 TO AMERICAN HONDA’S JANUARY 24, 2012 SUBMISSION

Redacted

Redacted

Redacted
Redacted

Redacted

Redacted

IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES SMALL CLAIMS CENTER - TORRANCE HEATHER PETERS, Plaintiff, v. AMERICAN HONDA MOTOR CO., INC., Defendant. ) ) ) ) ) ) )

Case No. 11S02156 Commissioner Douglas G. Carnahan

FILED UNDER SEAL EXHIBIT 9 TO AMERICAN HONDA’S JANUARY 24, 2012 SUBMISSION

Redacted
Redacted
Redacted
Redacted

Redacted

Redacted

Redacted

Redacted
Redacted
Redacted

Redacted
Redacted

Redacted
Redacted
Redacted

Redacted

Redacted
Redacted

Redacted

IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES SMALL CLAIMS CENTER - TORRANCE HEATHER PETERS, Plaintiff, v. AMERICAN HONDA MOTOR CO., INC., Defendant. ) ) ) ) ) ) )

Case No. 11S02156 Commissioner Douglas G. Carnahan

EXHIBIT 10 TO AMERICAN HONDA’S JANUARY 24, 2012 SUBMISSION

Date: To: From:

April 10, 2011 Lauren Vaughn Case ID: N01211-02-2201615 Richard Rutherford

Received your car wash bucket and I extend my many Mahalos (thank you in Hawaiian) to you. I just purchased a 2011 Civic EX-L 4 door. I sold my 2008 Honda Hybrid for $18,900, it had only 16,000 miles on it. You could still eat off the engine it was so new looking. At any rate, I will send you a summary of the mileage comparison I get between the two cars. I only have 88 miles on the new one so far but based upon what I have seen with my driving talent, I will make a projection that I will get around 42 to 45 MPG. We will see. Have a great day. Richard  

IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES SMALL CLAIMS CENTER - TORRANCE HEATHER PETERS, Plaintiff, v. AMERICAN HONDA MOTOR CO., INC., Defendant. ) ) ) ) ) ) )

Case No. 11S02156 Commissioner Douglas G. Carnahan

FILED UNDER SEAL EXHIBIT 11 TO AMERICAN HONDA’S JANUARY 24, 2012 SUBMISSION COPIES OF THIS EXHIBIT WILL BE AVAILABLE FOR INSPECTION AT JANUARY 25, 2012 HEARING

IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES SMALL CLAIMS CENTER - TORRANCE HEATHER PETERS, Plaintiff, v. AMERICAN HONDA MOTOR CO., INC., Defendant. ) ) ) ) ) ) )

Case No. 11S02156 Commissioner Douglas G. Carnahan

EXHIBIT 12 TO AMERICAN HONDA’S JANUARY 24, 2012 SUBMISSION

Peters v. AHM -- Exhibit 12 -- Page 1 of 6

Peters v. AHM -- Exhibit 12 -- Page 2 of 6

Peters v. AHM -- Exhibit 12 -- Page 3 of 6

Peters v. AHM -- Exhibit 12 -- Page 4 of 6

Peters v. AHM -- Exhibit 12 -- Page 5 of 6

Peters v. AHM -- Exhibit 12 -- Page 6 of 6

IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES SMALL CLAIMS CENTER - TORRANCE HEATHER PETERS, Plaintiff, v. AMERICAN HONDA MOTOR CO., INC., Defendant. ) ) ) ) ) ) )

Case No. 11S02156 Commissioner Douglas G. Carnahan

EXHIBIT 13 TO AMERICAN HONDA’S JANUARY 24, 2012 SUBMISSION

From: Sent: To: Subject:

Heather Peters [heatherxp@gmail.com] Friday, December 23, 2011 2:25 PM Mester, Mark (CH) RE: Vehicle Inspection

I just received your client's second request to postpone trial (which was summarily denied by the Court before I even had time to respond). Once again, Honda has misrepresented the facts to the Court. The moving papers state: "Unfortunately, when AHM contacted Ms. Peters to schedule the inspection, Ms. Peters failed to respond." Please let me clarify that NO ONE FROM HONDA HAS EVER CONTACTED ME FOR ANY REASON! The only contact that I have had in response to my offer to schedule inspection of my vehicle is your e-mail below seeking inspection AFTER OUR TRIAL DATE. Although I am taking great personal offense at the fact that Honda has now lied to the Court twice about my actions, I once again reiterate my offer to have any diagnostic tests your expert would like run completed by a Honda Certified Technician at Honda of Hollywood at a mutually convenient date BEFORE OUR TRIAL. While I understand that your litigation consultant must be very busy defending the five class actions brought by similarly disgruntled Honda Civic Hybrid owners, certainly he could find time to provide a list of tests he would like done by one of Honda's own Certified Technicians BEFORE OUR TRIAL. As I offered before, I am willing to take vacation time off from work to accommodate the testing. In conclusion, I find it completely unreasonable that Honda has been aware of my complaints (and intention to sue) since November 19th and is just now asking the court for inspection of the vehicle six court days before trial. Your client's argument that it is going to shut down completely over the holidays and therefore it is entitled to a continuance is disingenuous at best. If anything, the impending shut down provided Honda with a even greater incentive to contact me immediately upon receipt of my letter five weeks ago and yet still no one from Honda has ever contacted me directly, and you and I have only spoken on the phone once! -----Original Message----From: MARK.MESTER@lw.com [mailto:MARK.MESTER@lw.com] Sent: Tuesday, December 13, 2011 3:10 PM To: heatherxp@gmail.com Subject: RE: Vehicle Inspection Thank you for your email. For the reasons i discussed with you last week, I do not believe that it will be feasible to schedule a thorough inspection of your vehicle before the currently-scheduled trial date. Accordingly, my understanding is that American Honda has already requested a continuance and objected to the filing of your suit in light of the pendency of the injunction issued by Judge Taylor at the time of your filing. My further understanding is that those papers were filed with the Court yesterday (before I received your email last night), and i assume you will be receiving shortly your service copies. In any event, however, the inspection and testing we have in mind (though completely non-destructive) would be fairly extensive and would entail driving the vehicle and undertaking a fuel mileage test, all of which necessarily require advance planning. Moreover, and as I advised you, the person who would conduct and oversee the inspection and testing is out this week, and American Honda along with all other Honda affiliates will shortly be on company-wide shutdown through the holidays. I am, however, happy to discuss with you the inspection and testing of your vehicle at a convenient time and date in January if that is something you are willing to consider. Alternatively, my understanding is that American Honda will seek leave from the Court to inspect the vehicle before trial. Best regards.

1

Peters v. AHM -- Exhibit 13 -- Page 1 of 3

Sent with Good (www.good.com) -----Original Message----From: Heather Peters [mailto:heatherxp@gmail.com] Sent: Monday, December 12, 2011 08:32 PM Eastern Standard Time To: Mester, Mark (CH) Cc: karent@hondaofhollywood.com Subject: Vehicle Inspection Mr. Mester,

Welcome back from vacation. I’m sure you are busy with end of year stuff and catch up from the time you were gone, but I wanted to make an offer to allow American Honda Motors (“AHM”) to send a representative to meet me and my mechanics at Honda of Hollywood to inspect my car. The Shop Foreman and Service Manager are both available at Honda of Hollywood any time tomorrow, Wednesday or Monday. If these dates are not convenient, we will make every effort to find a mutually convenient time before the trial on January 3rd and I am even willing to take vacation time off of work to accommodate you.

AHM can request the Honda Certified Technicians at Honda of Hollywood to test any parts or systems that might be of concern, but AHM is not to touch the car since it was your software update that made things worse. Of course, this will all be at the expense of AHM.

As I told you on the phone, and as my dealership service records reflect, the car has been inspected several times at Honda Certified Technicians for the following complaints among other things: · · · · Terrible MPG Failing to auto-stop and idling rough Feeling sluggish The IMA battery failing to hold a charge

Repeatedly the Honda Certified Technicians have found nothing that they could do to address these concerns and have told me that Honda will not replace the IMA battery and that even if they did, the software update cannot be reversed and it is designed to decrease fuel efficiency. They feel there is nothing left for them to inspect that they have not already done. However, if AHM believes more diagnostics are required, please provide a comprehensive list of what you would like done and we will follow your directions to make sure that your curiosity is satisfied. This offer is made in good faith even though there is no procedure entitling AHM to formal discovery in small claims court in California.

As you know, I wrote to AHM on November 18th seeking to address my concerns informally. However, AHM choose never to even acknowledge receipt of my letter leaving me no choice but to sue. Your call on December 5th was the first contact I ever received from AHM, so I find it completely unreasonable that AHM is now complaining that the timing of the trial is inconvenient and I have objected to any postponement. AHM has been litigating the very same complaints that I raise here in at least five different cases since 2005 so there is nothing here that will take them by surprise.

Peters v. AHM -- Exhibit 13 -- Page 2 of 3

2

I understand that your chosen litigation consultant is unavailable to inspect the car until next year, however, I’m certain that AHM can find another well qualified individual to handle a routine vehicle inspection since AHM has “2,810 non-retail Honda employees in California” and both AHM’s Corporate Headquarters and Honda R&D Americas (including three product design studios) are located less than three miles from the Courthouse - not to mention the fact that Honda Performance Development has a 123,000-square-foot comprehensive research facility located just over the hill in Santa Clarita.

I look forward to hearing from you shortly to schedule the inspection. Otherwise, I look forward to trial on January 3rd.

Regards, Heather Peters (310) 699-2485

******************************************************************************* To comply with IRS regulations, we advise you that any discussion of Federal tax issues in this e-mail was not intended or written to be used, and cannot be used by you, (i) to avoid any penalties imposed under the Internal Revenue Code or (ii) to promote, market or recommend to another party any transaction or matter addressed herein. For more information please go to http://www.lw.com/docs/irs.pdf ******************************************************************************* This email may contain material that is confidential, privileged and/or attorney work product for the sole use of the intended recipient. Any review, reliance or distribution by others or forwarding without express permission is strictly prohibited. If you are not the intended recipient, please contact the sender and delete all copies. Latham & Watkins LLP

Peters v. AHM -- Exhibit 13 -- Page 3 of 3

3

IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES SMALL CLAIMS CENTER - TORRANCE HEATHER PETERS, Plaintiff, v. AMERICAN HONDA MOTOR CO., INC., Defendant. ) ) ) ) ) ) )

Case No. 11S02156 Commissioner Douglas G. Carnahan

EXHIBIT 14 TO AMERICAN HONDA’S JANUARY 24, 2012 SUBMISSION

Peters v. AHM -- Exhibit 14 -- Page 1 of 1

IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES SMALL CLAIMS CENTER - TORRANCE HEATHER PETERS, Plaintiff, v. AMERICAN HONDA MOTOR CO., INC., Defendant. ) ) ) ) ) ) )

Case No. 11S02156 Commissioner Douglas G. Carnahan

EXHIBIT 15 TO AMERICAN HONDA’S JANUARY 24, 2012 SUBMISSION

Is It Worth The Money? Honda Civic Vs. Honda Civic Hybrid.

• • • • • •

Search
11 • By David

Is It Worth The Money? Honda Civic Vs. Honda Civic Hybrid.
Seeing as how many people say that hybrid cars are a waste of money, you will never get back the extra expense, and that they pollute just as much as straight gasoline fueled cars, I wanted to check for myself just how different they are from each other. Since Honda makes the Civic in a “regular” and a hybrid version, I figured it would be a good test as they are as similar as two cars can get except for what actually makes them go. First up, let’s look at the standard Honda Civic with a gasoline motor:

Honda Civic, Regular Gasoline Engine

The Honda Civic that is the most likely match for the hybrid version is the Civic EX, which starts at $19,510 with an automatic transmission. The car pretty much comes loaded with everything under the sun except for navigation and leather seats…which is good, because the Hybrid we compare it to won’t either. The car has a 140 HP 4 cylinder engine, a full array of airbags, and claims to get 30 mpg city/40 mpg highway. Not bad at all! It holds 13.2 gallons of gas, so at 40 MPG on the highway you can go 528 miles. Rated as an ULEV (ultra low emissions vehicle) it is probably one of the better “green” cars on the road that is not a hybrid…it emits 6.30 tons per year of greenhouse gases, putting it towards the lower end of every car on the road. So to make a difficult comparison a little bit easier (so I don’t have to go get an engineering degree) lets do some simple math…$19,510 for the car plus $595 destination fee plus $1,659 in tax (here in California) makes the Honda Civic with a gas engine cost $21,764 just to drive it home. And let’s say you keep it for 5 years and you drive an average of 15,000 miles per year at 35 MPG, which amounts to 2,142 gallons of gas at today’s price of $3.00, so your total for gas would be $6,426. Total expenditures: $28,190 over 5 years. Then if you sold the car, Hondas normally retain 49% of their retail value over 5 years, so it would still be worth $9,959. $28,190 – $9,959 = $18,231 for use and gasoline of the car over 5 years, or $3,646 per year to own and drive the car. Pretty decent figure, I must say. So what about the Honda Civic Hybrid? Do you think it can beat that?

http://www.mytwodollars.com/2007/08/27/is-it-worth-the-money-honda-civic-vs-honda-civic-hyb... 1/19/2012

Peters v. AHM -- Exhibit 15 -- Page 1 of 2

Is It Worth The Money? Honda Civic Vs. Honda Civic Hybrid.

Compare Chevrolet Cruze www.chevrolet.com/Cruze With EPA Est 28 City & 42 Hwy MPG. Check out the Cruze Eco Now! Find Hybrids Near You Cars.com Hybrid Listings, Prices & Reviews. Find the Perfect Car at Cars.com! 2012 Honda Accord Review Honda.WhyPaySticker.com Find out What You Could Be Paying For a New 2012 Honda Accord! Honda — 2011 Clearance Honda.DealersClearingLots.com Get a Honda Internet Price Now — Because it Can Save You Money

Honda Civic, Hybrid Engine

The Civic Hybrid starts at $22,600 with an automatic transmission and has the same options as the standard car above. It has a 110 HP engine, safety features everywhere, and claims to get 49 mpg city and 51 mpg highway which is about 20 more mpg than the regular Civic. It holds 12.3 gallons of gas (1 gallon less than the regular Civic), so at 51 mpg on the highway you can hopefully go 627.3 miles. The Hybrid emits 4.40 tons per year of greenhouse gases, so it does indeed pollute less than the other car. So again, let’s do some simple math…$22,600 for the car plus $595 for destination fee plus $1,864 in tax makes the Hybrid cost about $25,059 to drive home. At first glance, this looks like it adds a $3200 premium over the standard Hybrid, but let’s continue on. Let’s say you keep this car for 5 years as well and drive the same 15,000 miles per year at an average of 50 mpg, which amounts to 1,500 gallons of gas at today’s price of $3.00 – making your total for gas over 5 years $4,500. That’s a savings of about $2,000 in gasoline costs just over 5 years as compared to the car above. So add them all up again and you get $25,059 plus $4,500 in gas = $29,559 over 5 years. Then if you sold this car, if the average Honda retains 49% of its value, you could sell it for $11,074. $29,559 – $11,074 = $18,485 for use and gasoline in 5 years. About the exact same as the car above…but wait, there’s more! When you buy the Civic Hybrid, at least until the end of the year, you get a tax break of $2100…bringing that total cost for 5 years down to $16,385, or $3,277 per year. So let’s take a look at the final numbers, if your head is not spinning yet: Honda Civic, standard gasoline engine: $18,231 including use and gasoline for five years. This breaks down to $3,646 per year or $303.83 per month. Honda Civic, hybrid gas/electric engine: $16,385 including use and gasoline for five years. This breaks down to $3,277 per year or $273.08 per month. In addition to the cash savings you also emit less pollution and depending on where you live, you might get to ride in the carpool lane by yourself or park at parking meters for free, so there are a few extra bonuses as well. It seems to me that while the cash difference between the two cars is not that significant, it is close enough that people considering the regular Civic should also consider the Hybrid. Sure, it might have a higher price tag in the window, but when you break down the costs over the first 5 years of ownership, the Hybrid comes out slightly ahead, both in expenses and “green-ness”. Either car is a fantastic car; I owned a Civic years ago that ran without complaint right up to 150,000 miles when I got rid of it, and my brother has owned a few now. Although I love the Prius, my wife and I are digging the “regular old car” look of the Civic Hybrid. Other than not knowing when, I know that our next car will definitely be a hybrid!

http://www.mytwodollars.com/2007/08/27/is-it-worth-the-money-honda-civic-vs-honda-civic-hyb... 1/19/2012

Peters v. AHM -- Exhibit 15 -- Page 2 of 2

IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES SMALL CLAIMS CENTER - TORRANCE HEATHER PETERS, Plaintiff, v. AMERICAN HONDA MOTOR CO., INC., Defendant. ) ) ) ) ) ) )

Case No. 11S02156 Commissioner Douglas G. Carnahan

EXHIBIT 16 TO AMERICAN HONDA’S JANUARY 24, 2012 SUBMISSION

Honda Civic EX versus Honda Civic Hybrid Fuel Mileage Comparison - Fuel mileage test runs ...

Page 1 of 2

Hybrid Cars & Alt Fuels
Honda Civic EX versus Honda Civic Hybrid Fuel Mileage Comparo
Fuel Mileage Test Runs with Scott
From Christine & Scott Gable, former About.com Guides

The Story Here at Hybr d Cars and Alt Fuels, we field a lot of questions about hybr ds, and probably the most common of all is simply, "Are they really worth it?" Do hybr ds really get that much better fuel mileage than regular cars--and is t enough to justify their price premium? Well, we always do a "number crunch" as part of our hybrid reviews, but we've never actually done a real side-by-side comparison, instead relying on EPA mileage estimates of the nonhybr d versus our observed hybr d model fuel mileage to draw
2008 Honda Civic EX right side view. © Adrian Gable

conclus ons. This works pretty well, but the more I (Scott) thought about t, the more I wanted to do a little street test of my own to see what's what in the real world. So, I needed a car that is offered in both conventional and hybrid drivetrains, and I needed to put them both through the same types of driving condit ons--and carefully track all data--to get as close as possible to an apples-to-apples comparison. This "testorama" would give me a good sol d "no arguments here" body of data to unequivocally say "X car in hybrid dress performed this way against X car w th a regular engine." Having recently completed a test drive of the 2008 Honda Civic Hybrid1 (in which I did extensive fuel mileage tracking), I decided that this car and ts popular and eff cient (and comparably equipped) brother, the Honda Civic EX, would be my guinea pigs. Honda agreed and sent over a beautiful Alabaster Silver 2008 Civic EX sedan, and I commenced to drive. I was pretty conf dent that I'd be able to handily beat the EPA estimates in the EX by simply employing some of my favorite Thrifty-Drive techniques2-the same I used when test driving the Civic Hybrid. I've been steadily honing these skills over the years and it's gotten to the point that I can best the EPA's numbers by 15 percent or more for any given vehicle. I just slow down and drive gently, which ironically enough, "gets me there" in just about the same amount of time as aggressive yellow-light-running driving does, but at a much better bang-for-the-buck-for-the-minute rate. The Drivetrains • Honda Civic EX: My tester EX came outf tted with the standard 140 hp 1.8-liter iVTEC 4-cylinder engine and optional 5-speed automatic transmission. It's a nice package with plenty of power and great fuel economy numbers, thanks to Honda's thrifty variable valve timing scheme. The EPA gives the EX 25/36/29 city/highway/combined ratings. • Honda Civic Hybrid: The hybr d vers on gets ts very own purpose-built drivetrain package consisting of a 110 hp 1.3-liter 4-cylinder engine and electric motor combination that transfers power to the wheels through a CVT transmiss on. EPA ratings for this package come in at 40/45/42 city/highway/combined. For more info on how this un que drivetrain works, see our 2008 Honda Civ c Hybr d test drive and review3. The Tests Because of the nature of pure city driving, with ts short distances between numerous starts and stops, it's diff cult to employ Thrifty-Drive techn ques and improve on EPA ratings. For this reason, I lim ted my mileage comparos to all-highway and then combined (an assortment of roadways and traffic condit ons) situat ons, and I further divided them by eco-styles and "normal" styles. I suppose at this point, it's important to define what I call "normal" driving. In short, t's aggressive behavior that I observe during my daily travels out on the roads w th thousands of other motorists: jack rabbit starts ... not slowing (or worse, accelerating) on highway exit ramps ... speeding to stop signs (and then jamming-on the brakes at the last moment) ... and of course, my favorite shake-my-head-maneuver, constantly jockeying and darting to get ahead of the next guy. The Four Tests and Results All mileage numbers are expressed in miles per gallon: Normal combined -- jaunts driving like "normal" motorists described above. EX--32.2, Hybrid--41.5 Normal highway -- long freeway runs using no "cruise" and changing lanes frequently to keep pace with the fastest traffic (usually between 75 and 80 mph). EX--36.6, Hybrid--49.1 Eco combined -- everyday trips using the eco-techn ques described in Scott's Thrifty-Drive4. EX--37.4, Hybrid--48.7 Eco highway -- long highway jaunts with "cruise" set at a steady 61 mph.

http://alternativefuels.about.com/od/hybridvehicles/a/civiccomparo.htm?p=1

Peters v. AHM -- Exhibit 16 -- Page 1 of 2

1/19/2012

Honda Civic EX versus Honda Civic Hybrid Fuel Mileage Comparison - Fuel mileage test runs ...
EX--42.3, Hybrid--54.7 Interpreting the Results

Page 2 of 2

These test results leave l ttle doubt that the Honda Civic (hybrid or no) gets excellent fuel economy. Even when driven hard, I still was able to pretty much beat EPA ratings across-the-board. My experience has usually been that the more fuel-efficient a veh cle is, the less adversely its fuel economy is affected by aggressive driving habits. Conversely, economy cars respond better to eco-driving techn ques than their large, less efficient counterparts. While both cars responded well to eco-driving, the EX d d a little better in the combined mileage tests, whereas the hybr d aced the highway improvements. What gives here? It seems to me that the engine-only EX is more readily influenced by easy driving/light throttle techniques in combined roadway condit ons where the engine could/would be more taxed during frequent accelerat on. On the highway, a steady throttle can only do so much. On the other hand, on combined roadways in the hybrid, the electr c motor m tigates some of the driver's influence for easing load on the engine (the hybr d system does it automatically). But on the open highway, the combination of the engine's cylinder deactivation5 and steady electric motor assist6 allows the engine to work with minimal fuel use. So, Is the Hybrid Civic Really Worth It? In most cases, I think so, and under the right cond tions, absolutely. Just look at the fuel mileage numbers. The hybr d bested the EX in every category, some by a larger percentage than others. Depending on the types of driving cond tions/styles the Civ c Hybr d owner would most regularly encounter, pay back time will likely fall within a four to six and a half year per od of ownership. (Based upon $3055 hybrid pr ce premium, $525 hybrid tax credit *ends 12/08*, 15,000 miles/year travel and gasoline @ $3.95/gallon).
This About.com page has been optimized for print. To view this page in its original form, please visit: http://alternativefuels about com/od/hybridvehicles/a/civiccomparo htm ©2012 About.com, Inc., a part of The New York Times Company. All rights reserved.

Links in this article: 1. http://alternativefuels about com/od/2008hybridreviews/fr/2008CivicHybrid.htm 2. http://alternativefuels about com/od/researchdevelopment/a/thriftydrive htm 3. http://alternativefuels about com/od/2008hybridreviews/fr/2008CivicHybrid.htm 4. http://alternativefuels about com/od/researchdevelopment/a/thriftydrive htm 5. http://alternativefuels about com/od/2008hybridreviews/ig/2008-Civic-Hybrid-photos/Civic-Hybrid-VTEC-rockers.htm 6. http://alternativefuels about com/od/2008hybridreviews/ig/2008-Civic-Hybrid-photos/Civic-Hybrid-IMA-operation.htm

http://alternativefuels.about.com/od/hybridvehicles/a/civiccomparo.htm?p=1

Peters v. AHM -- Exhibit 16 -- Page 2 of 2

1/19/2012

IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES SMALL CLAIMS CENTER - TORRANCE HEATHER PETERS, Plaintiff, v. AMERICAN HONDA MOTOR CO., INC., Defendant. ) ) ) ) ) ) )

Case No. 11S02156 Commissioner Douglas G. Carnahan

EXHIBIT 17 TO AMERICAN HONDA’S JANUARY 24, 2012 SUBMISSION

Peters v. AHM -- Exhibit 17 -- Page 1 of 2

Peters v. AHM -- Exhibit 17 -- Page 2 of 2

You're Reading a Free Preview

Download
scribd
/*********** DO NOT ALTER ANYTHING BELOW THIS LINE ! ************/ var s_code=s.t();if(s_code)document.write(s_code)//-->