Common use of PROCEDURAL HISTORY Clause in Contracts

PROCEDURAL HISTORY. A. On October 3, 2014, ▇▇▇▇ ▇▇▇▇▇ filed a class action complaint in ▇▇▇▇▇ v. Toyota Toyota (as defined below) designed, manufactured, distributed, advertised and sold certain Tacoma vehicles that allegedly lacked adequate rust protection on the vehicles’ frames that would allegedly result in premature rust corrosion and that ▇▇▇▇ ▇▇▇▇▇ and others similarly situated sustained economic losses as a result thereof. B. On March 24, 2015, ▇▇▇▇▇ ▇▇▇▇▇▇ and others filed a class action complaint in ▇▇▇▇▇ ▇▇▇▇▇▇ et ▇▇ ▇. Toyota Motor Sales, U.S.A., Inc., No. 2:15-cv-02171 (C.D. Cal.) alleging, among other things, that Toyota (as defined below) designed, manufactured, distributed, advertised and sold certain Tacoma vehicles that allegedly lacked adequate rust protection on the vehicles’ frames that would allegedly result in premature rust corrosion and that the plaintiffs and others similarly situated sustained economic losses as a result thereof. C. On April 23, 2015, the United States District Court for the Western District of Arkansas issued an Order granting in part and denying in part Toyota’s motion to dismiss plaintiff ▇▇▇▇ ▇▇▇▇▇’ complaint. Pursuant to the United States District Court for the Western District of Arkansas’ Order, plaintiff ▇▇▇▇ ▇▇▇▇▇’ claims for breach of express and implied warranties were dismissed, while the order upheld his claims under the Arkansas Deceptive Trade Practices Act, for unjust enrichment and for declaratory relief.. D. On June 5, 2015, the United States District Court for the Central District of California issued an order granting Toyota’s motion to dismiss the complaint filed by plaintiff ▇▇▇▇▇ ▇▇▇▇▇▇ and others without prejudice. E. On June 19, 2015, plaintiff ▇▇▇▇▇ ▇▇▇▇▇▇ and others filed a First Amended Complaint. F. On January 12, 2016, the United States District Court for the Western District of Arkansas issued an Order granting in part and denying in part, Toyota’s motion for summary judgment on plaintiff ▇▇▇▇ ▇▇▇▇▇’ claims. Pursuant to the United States District Court for the Western District of Arkansas’ Order, Toyota’s motion for summary judgment was denied on all grounds except that plaintiff’s claim for injunctive relief was dismissed. In addition, according to this court’s order, Toyota’s motion to deny class certification was denied without prejudice. This court found it premature to make a ruling regarding whether class certification for any of ▇▇▇▇▇’▇ three proposed classes should be denied based upon the pleadings alone. G. On March 8, 2016, the United States District Court for the Central District of California granted in part and denied in part Toyota’s motion to dismiss the First Amended Complaint filed by plaintiff ▇▇▇▇▇ ▇▇▇▇▇▇ and others, such that plaintiffs’ claims under the consumer protection laws of California, Florida, Ohio, and Louisiana were dismissed with prejudice; and plaintiffs’ claims under Maryland, New York, and North Carolina law were dismissed to the extent they contained allegations based on Toyota’s alleged misrepresentations, but plaintiffs could pursue said claims based on Defendant’s alleged omissions. H. Plaintiff ▇▇▇▇▇ ▇▇▇▇▇▇ and others filed a Second Amended Complaint, adding ▇▇▇▇ ▇▇▇▇▇ as one of the plaintiffs. The Second Amended Complaint expanded the allegations to also include certain Tundra and Sequoia vehicles. The Second Amended Complaint also added counts for the alleged violations of the Arkansas consumer protection laws, breach of implied warranty of merchantability and breach of express warranty.