NACo Legal Advocacy: City of Seattle et al. v. Kia/Hyundai

Author

Image of Paige-Mellerio-2.png

Paige Mellerio

Legislative Director, Finance, Pensions & Intergovernmental Affairs | Local Government Legal Center
Image of Joe-Jackson_0.png

Joe Jackson

Legislative Associate

Upcoming Events

Related News

Advocacy

NACo Legal Advocacy: Perttu v. Richards

Seattle, Washington

County Nexus

The question at hand in City of Seattle et al. v. Kia/Hyundai is whether or not the Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard (FMVSS) preempts state tort claims brought forth by local governments alleging that Kia and Hyundai’s failure to install “reasonable” anti-theft technology constitutes negligence and public nuisance.  

Background

Design flaws in automobiles designed by Kia and Hyundai have led to a surge in theft of the vehicles, which has overwhelmed local law enforcement agencies and jeopardized public safety. Over a dozen local governments have sued Kia and Hyundai alleging that design flaws in their vehicles, such as the lack of engine immobilizers, make them highly susceptible to theft. The local governments involved in these suits assert claims of nuisance and public negligence, arguing that Kia and Hyundai were aware of these design flaws yet failed to take reasonable steps to prevent theft by incorporating various anti-theft technologies.  

Kia and Hyundai filed a motion to dismiss arguing that the local governments’ allegations were preempted under federal law. The auto manufacturers argue that the government’s claims rely on a theory that would require the manufacturers to use a particular engine immobilizer, which would in turn run afoul of their flexibility under the FMVSS. The district court rejected the motion to dismiss, stating that the governments were not arguing for a specific engine immobilizer, only that they violated their duty by not installing “reasonable anti-theft technology.” Kia and Hyundai are appealing that motion to dismiss.

NACo Advocacy  

In a Local Government Legal Center amicus brief in support of the plaintiff-appellees, which argues that the FMVSS does not preempt local governments from filing tort claims against Kia and Hyundai from failing to incorporate “reasonable anti-theft technology.” As local law enforcement agencies are frequently tasked with responding to the thefts caused by a lack of anti-theft technology, which requires a significant investment of time and financial resources, it is critical that local government authority is not preempted by the Court. Preserving the ability of local governments to seek recourse against corporate wrongdoing who have harmed the public safety of a community.  

Current Status

Kia/Hyundai have filed to appeal the November 2023 motion to dismiss in the Ninth Circuit.  

2024-2025 Supreme Court Term

Seattle, Washington
Advocacy

NACo Legal Advocacy: City of Seattle et al. v. Kia/Hyundai

The question at hand in City of Seattle et al. v. Kia/Hyundai is whether or not the Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard preempts state tort claims brought forth by local governments alleging that Kia and Hyundai’s failure to install “reasonable” anti-theft technology constitutes negligence and public nuisance.

Court House
Advocacy

NACo Legal Advocacy: Perttu v. Richards

Perttu v. Richards has implications on the Prison Litigation Reform Act (PLRA) and could increase the amount of Section 1983 inmate-initiated cases against county jails that reach federal court, ultimately resulting in counties having to expend resources on frivolous lawsuits.  

Image of Telecom-towers.jpg
Advocacy

NACo Legal Advocacy: McLaughlin Chiropractic Associates, Inc. V. McKesson Corporation

McLaughlin Chiropractic Associates, Inc. V. McKesson Corporation could make it more difficult for counties to challenge FCC orders, many of which have taken steps to preempt and curtail local authority by limiting counties’ abilities to manage their own right of way and assess fair market value permitting and impact fees on providers seeking to construct, modify or extend telecommunications infrastructure in their communities. 

Image of Water-infrastructure.jpg
Advocacy

NACo Legal Advocacy: San Francisco v. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA)

San Francisco v. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) has implications for the ability of county governments that own and operate wastewater treatment facilities to comply with National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) permit requirements. 

Image of Gavel_3.jpg
Advocacy

NACo Legal Advocacy: Lackey v. Stinnie

Lackey v. Stinnie will impact the ability of state and local governments to avoid paying litigation fees in a civil rights case if they change their conduct (i.e. repeal a law) after a court has granted a preliminary injunction.

police investigating a crime scene
Advocacy

NACo Legal Advocacy: Garland v. VanDerStok

Garland v. VanDerStok has implications for the ability of county law enforcement to uphold public safety and investigate crimes involving ghost guns.

Image of Budgeting_2.jpg
Advocacy

NACo Legal Advocacy: Stanley v. City of Sanford

Stanley v. City of Sanford will impact the ability of county governments to balance budgets by reducing or eliminating post-employment benefits for disability retirees. 

Image of GettyImages-991802694.jpg
Advocacy

NACo Legal Advocacy: EMD Sales, Inc. v. Carrera

EMD Sales, Inc. v. Carrera could make it more difficult for county governments to prove exemptions under the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA), which would increase the potential for costly litigation.

Related News

Woman on bench
Advocacy

Congress advances Second Chance Act reauthorization

On December 4, the Senate passed the Second Chance Reauthorization Act (S.4477) by unanimous consent, a major milestone for supporting county reentry programs. NACo supports this legislation, which would reauthorize funding for Second Chance Act programs for five years. 

Court House
Advocacy

NACo Legal Advocacy: Perttu v. Richards

Perttu v. Richards has implications on the Prison Litigation Reform Act (PLRA) and could increase the amount of Section 1983 inmate-initiated cases against county jails that reach federal court, ultimately resulting in counties having to expend resources on frivolous lawsuits.  

Image of Telecom-towers.jpg
Advocacy

NACo Legal Advocacy: McLaughlin Chiropractic Associates, Inc. V. McKesson Corporation

McLaughlin Chiropractic Associates, Inc. V. McKesson Corporation could make it more difficult for counties to challenge FCC orders, many of which have taken steps to preempt and curtail local authority by limiting counties’ abilities to manage their own right of way and assess fair market value permitting and impact fees on providers seeking to construct, modify or extend telecommunications infrastructure in their communities.