1 THE MARGARIAN LAW FIRM HOVANES MARGARIAN (SBN: 246359) 2 SHUSHANIK MARGARIAN (SBN: 318617) 801 N. Brand Blvd., Suite 210 3 Glendale, CA 91203 4 Telephone: (818) 553-1000 Facsimile: (818) 553-1005 5 [email protected]
6 Attorneys for Plaintiffs, ARMEN G. KOJIKIAN 7 TIME TRADERS, INC. 8 SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA 9 FOR THE COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES, CENTRAL DISTRICT 10 ARMEN G. KOJIKIAN, as an individual, on ) Case No.: BC606392 11 behalf of himself, all others similarly situated, ) ) 12 and the general public; TIME TRADERS, Class Action INC., a California corporation, on behalf of ) ) 13 itself, all others similarly situated, and the ) Hon. Daniel J. Buckley general public ) 14 ) PLAINTIFFS’ MOTION FOR FINAL Plaintiffs, ) APPROVAL OF CLASS ACTION 15 ) SETTLEMENT ) 16 vs. ) Date: July 14, 2019 ) 17 AMERICAN HONDA MOTOR CO., INC., a ) Time: 11:00 a.m. California corporation; and DOES 1 through ) Place: Department 1 18 100, inclusive, ) ) 19 Defendants. ) Complaint Filed: January 8, 2016 ) Trial Date: None set 20 ) ) 21 ) ) 22 ) ) 23 ) ) 24 25
26
27
28
PLAINTIFFS’ MOTION FOR FINAL APPROVAL OF CLASS ACTION SETTLEMENT
1 TABLE OF CONTENTS
2 I. INTRODUCTION…………………………………………………………………………………..1
3 II. FACTS AND PROCEDURE……………………………………………………………………….3
4 A. Overview Of The Litigation…………………………………………………………………....3
5 B. Plaintiffs’ Considerable Investigation And Discovery………………………………………...4
6 C. The Parties’ Protracted Arm’s-Length Settlement Negotiations………………………………5
7 D. Material Terms Of The Proposed Class Action Settlement……………………………………5
8 1. The Proposed Settlement Class…………………………………………………...... 5
9 2. Extension Of Powertrain Warranty Period………………………………………………..6
10 3. Reimbursement For Out-of-Pocket Costs Before the Class Notice……………………….6
11 4. A Consumer-Friendly Claims Process…………………………………………………….6
12 5. The Effectuated Notice Of the Settlement Class / Claims Administration………………..7
13 6. Class Member Submissions to Claims Administrator: Claims/Opt Outs/Objections……..8
14 7. Proposed Attorneys’ Fees, Litigation Expenses, and Service Awards……………………9
15 E. Class Counsel’s Ongoing Efforts To Enforce The Settlement Terms…………………...... 10
16 III. ARGUMENT……………………………………………………………………………………...11
17 A. The Court Should Grand Final Approval Of the Class Action Settlement…………………...11
18 1. The Stage Of The Proceedings, Discovery and Unlikelihood of Success Beyond The Benefits Within The Settlement Favor Settlement Approval……………………………12 19 2. The Benefits of The Settlement Favor Final Approval and Suffer From No Obvious 20 Deficiencies………………………………………………………………………………13
21 3. The Views Of Experienced Counsel Should Be Accorded Substantial Weight…………14
22 4. The Reaction of The Class Members to the Proposed Settlement Favors Final Approval and the Seven Settlement Objectors Present No Argument To Warrant a Contrary 23 Conclusion……………………………………………………………………………….15
24 B. The Settlement is the Result of Informed, Non-Collusive Negotiations, Entitling It To A Presumption Of Fairness……………………………………………………………...... 25 25 IV. CONCLUSION……………………………………………………………………………………26 26
27
28
PLAINTIFFS’ MOTION FOR FINAL APPROVAL OF CLASS ACTION SETTLEMENT
1 TABLE OF AUTHORITIES
2 STATE CASES
3 Dunk v. Ford Motor Co.
4 (1996) 48 Cal.App.4th 1794 [54 Cal.Rpt.2d 483] …………………………………. 11, 15, 16, 24
5 Wershba v. Apple Computer
6 (2001) 91 Cal.App.4th 224 [110 Cal.Rpt.2d 145] ……………………………………... 15, 18, 21
7 Daugherty v. America Honda Motor Co., Inc.,
8 144 Cal. App. 4th 824 (2006))……………………………………………………………………14
9 7-Eleven Owners for Fair Franchising v. Southland Corp.,
10 85 Cal. App. 4th 1135, 1152-1153 (2000)…………………………………………………...14, 15
11 Churchill Village, L.L.C. v. Gen. Elec.
12 361 F.3d 566, 577 (9th Cir. 2004)………………………………………………………………15
13 Cordero v. American Honda Finance Corp. dba Honda Financial Services,
14 San Mateo County Superior Court, Case No. CIV531470…………………………...... 21
15
16 FEDERAL CASES
17 Knight v. Red Door Salons, Inc.
18 (N.D. Cal. Feb. 2, 2009, No. C 08-1520-SC) …………………………………………………...11
19 Garner v. State Farm Mut. Inc. Co.
20 (N.D. Cal. Apr. 22, 2010, No. C 081365 CW (EMC)) 2010 WL 1687832…………...…………11
21 Hanlon v. Chrysler Corp.
22 (9th Cir. 1998) 150 F.3d 1011, 1027……………………………………………………..11, 15, 17
23 Lamps Plus v. Varela
24 139 S. Ct. 1407 (2019)…………………………………………………………………………...14
25 Mazza v. American Honda Motor Co., Inc.
26 666 F.3d 581 (9th Cir. 2012)……………………………………………………………...... 14
27 Yamada v. Nobel Biocare Holding AG,
28 821 F.3d 1058 (9th Cir. 2016)), and the California Court of Appeal…………………………….14
2 PLAINTIFFS’ MOTION FOR FINAL APPROVAL OF CLASS ACTION SETTLEMENT
1 M. Berenson Co., Inc. v. Faneuil Hall Marketplace, Inc.
2 (D. Mass. 1987) 671 F. Supp. 819 ………………………………………………………………24
3 Officers for Justice v. Civil Serv. Comm’n
4 (9th Cir. 1982) 688 F.2d 615, cert. denied (1983) 459 U.S. 1217 ……………….…………..11, 24
5 Rodriguez v. West Pub. Corp.
6 563 F.3d 948, 967 (9th Cir. 2009)………………………………………………..……...... 15
7 Durm v. American Honda Finance Corporation
8 District of Maryland Case No. 13-cv-00223…………………………………….…...………….22
9 Davitt v. American Honda Motor Co., Inc.,
10 District of New Jersey Case No. 2:13-cv-0038………………………………...…….………….22
11 Keegan v. American Honda Motor Co., Inc.,
12 Central District of California Case No. 2:10-cv-09508-MMM-AJW……………...…...... 22
13 Zakskorn v. American Honda Motor Co., Inc.,
14 Eastern District of California Case No. 2:11-cv-02610……………………………...…………..22
15 Soto v. American Honda Motor Co., Inc.,
16 Northern District of California Case No. 3:12-cv-01377………………………………………..22
17 In Re: American Honda Motor Co., Inc., CR-V Vibration Marketing & Sales Practices Litigation,
18 S.D. of Ohio Case No. 2:15-MD-02661…………………………………………..……………..22
19 Gutierrez, et al. v. American Honda Motor Co. Inc.,
20 Central District of California Case No. 5:09-cv-01517………………………..….……………..22
21
22 STATE RULES
23 Rule 3.769 ………………………………………………………………………………...... 23
24 OTHER AUTHORITIES
25 2 Herbert B. Newberg & Alba Conte, Newberg on Class Actions (“Newberg”)
26 § 11.43 “General Criteria for Settlement Approval” (3rd ed. 1992) ……………...……………...11
27
28
3 PLAINTIFFS’ MOTION FOR FINAL APPROVAL OF CLASS ACTION SETTLEMENT
1 I. INTRODUCTION
2 This Motion for Final Approval (“Motion”) is the culmination of nearly four and one half years 3 of litigation. It seeks final approval of a Settlement Agreement which, to date, has conferred actual and 4 confirmed benefits for Class Vehicle1 piston repair costs under the Settlement’s warranty extensions 5 that exceed $68,000,000. Declaration of James Janik (“Janik Decl.”) ¶ 2. In addition, defendant 6 American Honda Motor Co., Inc. (“AHM”) forecasts that an additional $11.4 million in costs will be 7 incurred for additional claims that could be made for the Class Vehicles prior to the expiration of the 8 Powertrain Warranty Period. Id. ¶ 3. Thus, it is beyond credible dispute that the Class Action 9 Settlement (“Settlement”) between Plaintiffs Armen G. Kojikian and Time Traders, Inc. (“Plaintiffs”) 10 and AHM is a fair, adequate, and reasonable resolution for the potential “excessive oil consumption” 11 claims that are the basis for this lawsuit. Plaintiffs, therefore, now move for final approval of the 12 Settlement Agreement that secures significant benefits for the Class without the delay and risks 13 associated with trial and potential appeals. The Settlement Agreement provides, among other items, the 14 following: 15 Extension of Powertrain Warranty Period: Pursuant to the Settlement, AHM sent a February 16 2019 Warranty Extension Notice to owners and lessees of the Class Vehicles. Declaration of George 17 Kudo (“Kudo Decl.”) ¶ 2 & Ex. A. The Warranty Extension Notice was separate and apart from the 18 Class Notice sent to Class Members following preliminary approval. Pursuant to the Warranty 19 Extension Notice and Settlement, AHM implemented a generous extension to the Class Vehicles’ 20 original 5 year/60,000 mile powertrain warranty period, and commenced delivery of the Settlement’s 21 warranty extension benefit before preliminary approval. Thus, the Settlement extends the Powertrain 22 Warranty Period to 8 years/125,000 miles (whichever occurs first) from the date of the original sale or 23 lease of each Class Vehicle (“Powertrain Warranty Period”). Class Vehicles that experience excessive 24 oil consumption during the Powertrain Warranty Period are entitled to a repair under warranty, free of 25 charge. See Kudo Decl. ¶ 2. In addition, to ensure that older or high-mileage Class Vehicles that may
26
27 1 Class Members are all residents of the United States, Puerto Rico, and all U.S. territories, who currently own or lease, or previously owned or leased, a 2010-2013 Acura MDX, 2011-2012 Acura RL, 2009-2014 Acura TL, and 28 2010-2013 Acura ZDX vehicles with J37 engines (“Class Vehicle”)
PLAINTIFFS’ MOTION FOR FINAL APPROVAL OF CLASS ACTION SETTLEMENT
1 be outside the generous Powertrain Warranty Period also receive a benefit, AHM implemented a
2 Powertrain Warranty Gap Period. The Waranty Extension Notice informed Class Members that they
3 may receive a free repair for excessive oil consumption, for a six-month period following the Warranty
4 Extension Notice, regardless of the Class Vehicle’s age or mileage. Id. Ex. A.
5 Reimbursement for Out-of-Pocket Costs Incurred Before the Class Notice Date: Upon
6 submission of a timely claim form and required documentation, after final approval (once the
7 Settlement becomes Effective), AHM will reimburse Class Members for money paid for a repair or
8 replacement of the piston and/or piston ring due to an excessive oil consumption complaint on a Class
9 Vehicle, and reasonable labor costs for this repair (“Piston Repair”), that were incurred prior to the
10 Class Notice, provided such amounts were not otherwise previously reimbursed by insurance, warranty
11 or goodwill (“Out-of-Pocket Costs”).
12 A Consumer-Friendly Claims Process: The Claims process under the Settlement is easy and
13 straight forward. The Warranty Extension benefit requires no claim or out-of-pocket payment. Class
14 Members must simply present their vehicle to an Acura dealership. For past Out-of-Pocket costs, Class
15 Members are required complete and submit a simple claim form, along with basic documentary proof
16 necessary to establish the claimed out-of-pocket expenses. The Settlement provides for prompt
17 reimbursement for eligble out-of-pocket costs once the Settlement becomes effective.
18 Class Member Notification: Class Members received two notifications of the Class benefits
19 under the settlement. The Warranty Extension Notice, which was on Acura letterhead and provides
20 notice only of the Settlement’s warranty extensions, was sent to owners and lessees of the Class
21 Vehicles in February 2019. Kudo Decl. ¶ 2 & Ex. A. This notice was sent to Class Vehicle owners and
22 lessees at their most up-to-date available addresses, using the same address update and verification
23 process that is used for the dissemination of class notices. Id. ¶ 3. Upon preliminary approval, on
24 Feburary 14, 2020, AHM disseminated the Court-approved Class Notice to nearly 429,191 Class
25 Members. Declaration of Julie M. Kim (“Kim Decl.”) ¶ 7. The Class Settlement Website went live the
26 same day (Feb. 14, 2020) and provides information concerning the Settlement and claims process. Id. ¶
27 4. AHM is currently in the process of disseminating a Supplemental Postcard Notice that, among other
28 things, provides additional Settlement related updates.
2 PLAINTIFFS’ MOTION FOR FINAL APPROVAL OF CLASS ACTION SETTLEMENT
1 Attorneys’ Fees and Service Awards. Under the Settlement Agreement, AHM agreed not to
2 oppose Plaintiffs’ request for attorneys’ fees and expenses of up to a combined sum of $644,750 to
3 Plaintiffs’ counsel, which will be paid separate and apart from the benefits to the Class. In addition,
4 AHM has agreed not to oppose Plaintiffs’ request for up to $2,500 in service payments each to
5 Plaintiffs Armen G. Kojikian and Time Traders, Inc., for their efforts on behalf of Class Members.
6 In short, the Settlement, with over $68 million in confirmed benefits already delivered to the
7 Class to date, and an additional $11.4 million in forecasted future warranty extension benefits, is
8 abundantly fair, reasonable, and adequate. This is made evident by the Class Members’ extraordinarily
9 positive response which, for a class that includes 429,191 Class Members, has produced a mere 101
10 opt-outs and just 7 objections (Kim. Decl. ¶¶ 7, 11) that, as explained herein, are without merit.
11 Accordingly, the parties respectfully request that the Court enter an order granting final approval of the
12 Settlement and issue a judgment reflecting the same.
13 II. FACTS AND PROCEDURE
14 A. Overview Of The Litigation
15 On January 8, 2016, Plaintiffs filed aputative class action in the Superior Court of the State of 16 California, County of Los Angeles captioned Kojikian et al. v. American Honda Motor Co., Inc., Case
17 No. BC 606392 (the “Action” or “Litigation”), on behalf of themselves and a putative nationwide class 18 asserting claims for (1) breach of express warranty, (2) breach of implied warranty, (3) breach of 19 warranty (Song-Beverly Consumer Warranty Act), Civil Code § 1790 et seq. (“Song-Beverly”), (4) 20 breach of warranty (Magnuson-Moss Warranty Act), 15 U.S.C. § 2301 et seq. (“Mag-Moss”), (5)
21 violation of the California Consumers Legal Remedies Act, Civil Code § 1750 et seq. (“CLRA”), (6) 22 violation of California Business & Professions Code § 17200 et seq. (“UCL”), and (7) nuisance. 23 On May 18, 2016, Plaintiffs filed a First Amended Class Action Complaint for Damages and 24 Equitable Relief (“Complaint”) asserting claims for (1) breach of express warranty, (2) breach of 25 implied warranty, (3) breach of warranty (Song-Beverly), (4) breach of warranty (Mag-Moss), and (5) 26 violation of UCL. 27 On August 24, 2016, AHM filed a demurrer pursuant to California Code of Civil Procedure 28 section 430.10 to the claims asserted in Plaintiffs’ First Amended Class Action Complaint (“FAC”) and
3 PLAINTIFFS’ MOTION FOR FINAL APPROVAL OF CLASS ACTION SETTLEMENT
1 moved to strike the nationwide class allegations in Plaintiffs’ FAC. On February 2, 2017, AHM’s
2 demurrer to the non-California warranty claims and to the Mag-Moss claim (to the extent premised on
3 non-California warranty claims) was sustained without leave to amend, and AHM’s motion to strike
4 was granted without leave to amend. AHM filed its answer to the remaining claims in the FAC on
5 March 17, 2017.
6 Throughout the duration of the litigation proceedings, the parties engaged in extensive written
7 discovery. Plaintiffs also deposed AHM’s Person Most Knowledgeable (“PMK”) designee, an out-of-
8 state witness, on November 16, 2017, who provided substantial testimony along with document
9 production on issues related to Plaintiffs’ claims.
10 B. Plaintiffs’ Considerable Investigation And Discovery
11 Plaintiffs, by and through Class Counsel, have: (a) made a thorough investigation of the facts 12 and circumstances surrounding the allegations asserted in the Litigation; (b) engaged in investigation 13 and discovery of the claims asserted in the Litigation, including discovery obtained by Plaintiffs in 14 connection with the Action and prior to execution of this Agreement, and (c) evaluated and considered 15 the law applicable to the claims asserted in the Litigation, including the defenses that AHM likely 16 would assert. 17 Both prior to and after the filing of this action, Plaintiffs thoroughly investigated and litigated 18 this case. Among other things, Plaintiffs fielded inquiries from prospective Class Members; consulted 19 and retained automotive experts; researched publicly available materials and information provided by 20 the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (“NHTSA”) concerning consumer complaints 21 about excessive oil consumption; reviewed and researched consumer complaints and discussions of 22 excessive oil consumption in articles and forums online; reviewed various manuals and technical 23 service bulletins discussing the alleged defect; conducted research into the various causes of actions; 24 drafted the Complaint, the FAC, an opposition to a demurrer and an opposition to a motion to strike; 25 presented oral arguments on the aforementioned motions. See, e.g., Declaration of Hovanes Margarian 26 (“Margarian Decl.”) ¶ 2. 27 Plaintiffs also propounded discovery on AHM. In response, AHM produced extensive warranty 28 claims data and hundreds of pages of documents, including: owners’ manuals, maintenance and
4 PLAINTIFFS’ MOTION FOR FINAL APPROVAL OF CLASS ACTION SETTLEMENT
1 warranty manuals, design documents (e.g., technical drawings), technical service bulletins, field
2 reports, customer comments detail reports, and other documents. Id.
3 Finally, Plaintiffs prepared for and took the deposition of Defendants’ PMK, whose testimony
4 reassures Plaintiffs that the settlement’s warranty extension benefit, which offers a piston repair to
5 address excessive oil consumption complaints, is a fair and reasonable remedy and benefit for the
6 concerns that underlie Plaintiffs’ claims in this action. Margarian Decl. ¶ 3.
7 C. The Parties’ Protracted Arm’s-Length Settlement Negotiations
8 The proposed Settlement was the culmination of protracted discussions between the Parties, 9 extensive consultation with their experts, discovery, and thorough analysis of the pertinent facts and 10 law at issue. Margarian Decl. ¶¶ 3-5. 11 The parties mediated with the Hon. Howard Weiner in early January 2018, followed by a 12 second session on March 29, 2018. Margarain Decl. ¶ 3. During these arms-length mediation sessions 13 the parties worked relentlessly to negotiate a fair settlement. In advance of the mediations, the Parties 14 submitted mediation briefs setting forth their positions. At mediation, the Parties were able to reach an 15 agreement on all material terms of the proposed relief to the Class, subject only to AHM’s corporate 16 approval. Only after the Parties had reached this agreement did they negotiate attorneys’ fees, costs, 17 and incentive awards. Ultimately, the Parties reached an agreement on these terms as well. Subsequent 18 to the mediation, inter alia, the Parties formalized the Settlement Agreement, including drafting and 19 finalizing the notice to the class and claim form. Id. The Parties also made minor adjustments to the 20 terms based on the Court’s directives in evaluating the Settlement Agreement for preliminary approval. 21 Id. The end product is a global final Settlement Agreement is a fair, arms-length agreement that 22 obviates the need for further litigation and provides substantial beneifts to members of the putative 23 class. 24 D. Material Terms Of The Proposed Class Action Settlement
25 1. The Proposed Settlement Class
26 The Settlement Class consists of all residents of the United States, Puerto Rico, and all U.S. 27 territories who currently own or lease, or previously owned or leased, a Class Vehicle. Class Vehicles
28 are 2010-2013 Acura MDX, 2011-2012 Acura RL, 2009-2014 Acura TL, and 2010-2013 Acura ZDX
5 PLAINTIFFS’ MOTION FOR FINAL APPROVAL OF CLASS ACTION SETTLEMENT
1 vehicles with J37 engines, made for sale and/or lease in the United States, Puerto Rico, or the U.S
2 territories and that were sold or leased to a Class Member who registered and operated the vehicle in
3 the United States, Puerto Rico, or the U.S. territories. See Settlement Agreement § I. In total, the Class
4 includes 429,191 Class Members who own or lease (or have owned or leased) 210,821 Class Vehicles.
5 See Kim Decl. ¶ 7.
6 To ensure full and final relief for the claims asserted, the parties agreed to nationwide settlement
7 class as opposed to the statewide class plead in the First Amended Complaint. As such, pursuant to the
8 leave to amend granted at the time of preliminary approval of the Settlement Agreement, Plaintiffs filed
9 a Second Amended Complaint (“SAC”) to conforms the Class Definition in the SAC to the Settlement
10 Class defined within the Settlement Agreement.
11 2. Extension Of Powertrain Warranty Period
12 AHM extended the Class Vehicles’ original powertrain warranty period of 5 years/60,000 miles 13 to 8 years/125,000 miles period (whichever occurs first) from the date of the original sale or lease of 14 each Class Vehicle (“Powertrain Warranty Period”). Kudo Decl. ¶ 2, Ex. A. In addition, AHM agreed 15 to a six-month gap period (“Powertrain Warranty Gap Period”), following the dissemination of the 16 Warranty Extension Notice, during which Class Vehicles that are outside the Powertrain Warranty 17 Period may nevertheless get a warranty repair for an excessive oil consumption complaint, regardless of 18 the Class Vehicles’ years in service or mileage. Id. 19 3. Reimbursement For Out-of-Pocket Costs Before the Class Notice
20 Upon submission of a timely Claim Form, AHM will reimburse Class Members for valid and
21 eligible Out-Of-Pocket Costs incurred prior to the Class Notice Date. To obtain reimbursement under 22 paragraph III of the Sttlement Agreement, Class Members must submit (i.e., transmit via the settlement 23 website, U.S. mail or fax) a timely and valid Claim Form and Required Documentation to the Class 24 Administrator before the Applicable Claims Deadline (as set forth in Paragraph I(3)(a). A timely Claim 25 Form is one that is postmarked within the Applicable Claims Deadline. Validated Claims will be paid 26 by the Approved Claim Payment Date. 27 4. A Consumer-Friendly Claims Process 28
6 PLAINTIFFS’ MOTION FOR FINAL APPROVAL OF CLASS ACTION SETTLEMENT
1 The claims process has been designed to minimize the burden on Class Members while ensuring
2 that only valid claims are paid. To obtain reimbursement for an eligible out-of-pocket costs for an
3 Eligible Repair performed prior to the Class Notice, a Settlement Class Member must complete a
4 simple Claim Form and supply documentary proof necessary to substantiate claims and out-of- pocket
5 expenses.
6 5. The Effectuated Notice Of the Settlement Class / Claims Administration.
7 In accordance with paragraph IV(A) of the Settlement, AHM mailed the Court-approved Class 8 Notice, by First Class Mail, on February 14, 2020 to 429,191 total current and former owners and 9 lessees of the 210,821 Class Vehicles that were registered and operated in the United States, Puerto 10 Rico, and the U.S. Territories. Kim Decl. ¶ 7. To ensure the most up-to-date contact information is 11 used for this mailing, AHM retained IHS Markit Polk to obtain and provide the last known, most- 12 current mailing address from state DMVs. Id. 13 In addition, in accordance with paragraph IV(C) of the Settlement, AHM secured a URL for the 14 settlement website (www.acuraoilconsumptionsettlement.com), and populated the website with 15 pertinent information relating to the Settlement. Kim Decl. ¶ 4. The website was live on February 14, 16 2020 and has been available continuously since that date. Id. Among other things, the website has 17 posted copies (as they have become available) of the (a) Class Notice (in both English and Spanish), (b) 18 Claim Form (in both English and Spanish), (c) answers to Frequently Asked Questions, (d) Settlement 19 Agreement (and any addendums thereto), (e) Plaintiffs’ Motion for Preliminary Approval, (f) the 20 Preliminary Approval Order of the Court, (g) Plaintiffs’ Motion for Attorney’s Fees, and (h) the Second 21 Amended Class Action Complaint. Id. The Settlement website also lists important deadlines, contact 22 information for Class Counsel and the Claims Administrator, and has been updated with additional 23 Settlement related information and documents as they have become available. Id. The Settlement 24 Website will remain live for six (6) months after the Effective Date of the Settlement. Id. As of April 25 30, 2020, there have been 3,639 page views on the Settlement Website. Kim Decl. ¶ 10. 26 In accordance with paragraph IV(C) of the Settlement, the Claims Administrator also 27 established a toll-free telephone number, 888-888-3082, where Class Members can talk to a live person 28 during regular business hours (6 a.m. to 5 p.m.) to get answers to settlement-related questions. Kim
7 PLAINTIFFS’ MOTION FOR FINAL APPROVAL OF CLASS ACTION SETTLEMENT
1 Decl. ¶ 5. After business hours, the same telephone number provides pre-recorded answers to
2 commonly asked questions. Id. The toll-free telephone number was live on February 14, 2020. Id. ¶ 6.
3 Despite the ongoing pandemic, Class Members have been able to reach a live operator to answer
4 Settlement related questions. Id. The lone exception was during the period March 17, 2020 through
5 March 20, 2020, during which time live operators were available to answer phone calls on a reduced
6 hour schedule while AHM implemented procedures to ensure proper social distancing and work
7 conditions that comply with CDC recommendations. Id. As of April 30, 2020, the Claims
8 Administrator has received 265 Class Member calls in respect to the Settlement. Kim Decl. ¶ 10.
9 6. Class Member Submissions to Claims Administrator: Claims/Opt Outs/Objections 10 Since the date the Court issued its Preliminary Approval Order, and following dissemination of 11 the Class Notice, the Claims Administrator has been responsible for implementing and 12 administering reimbursement claims by Class Members, including, but not limited to, the following 13 tasks: Receiving and conducting an initial validation screening of Claims to determine timeliness of 14 submission, completeness of the Claim, and the completeness of the Required Documentation; 15 Performing Claim Processing and preparing to issue payments for Claims; Collecting and transmiting 16 to Class Counsel and Defendant’s Counsel the names and contact information of Class Members who 17 have “opt out” of the proposed Settlement or objected to the proposed settlement. 18 Class Members who submitted Claims that were incomplete (e.g. lack Required Documentation 19 other required information) or were not approved for payment have been and continue to be promptly 20 receive from the Claims Administrator by first class mail a written explanation explaining why a Claim 21 has been denied, or, if applicable, providing instruction on steps the individual can take to cure 22 deficiencies in a Claim. The Claimant receiving notice of an incomplete Claim is being allowed thirty 23 (30) days to submit materials to cure the deficiencies. If corrective information is not provided within 24 thirty (30) days of a deficiency notice, the Claim will be denied. 25 The deadline to submit Claims for the reimbursement of eligible Out-Of-Pocket Costs under 26 paragraphs I(34) and III(A) for the Settlement is May 13, 2020. AHM has been collecting and logging 27 Claim Forms as they are received. As of April 30, 2020, the Claims Administrator has received a total 28
8 PLAINTIFFS’ MOTION FOR FINAL APPROVAL OF CLASS ACTION SETTLEMENT
1 of 746 Claim Forms. Kim Decl. ¶ 9. These Claims are presently being verified under the terms of the
2 Settlement. A final accounting will be submitted to the Court once all the claims are received and
3 processed. In the interim, the Claims Administrator, upon reasonable request, has been and will
4 continue to provide to Class Counsel and Defendant’s Counsel summary information concerning the
5 number of Claims made, number of Claims returned for incompleteness, and number of Claims
6 pending in Claim Processing, number of Claims validated, and the total amount of reimbursement
7 payments to be made on validated Claims.
8 In any instance in which the Claims Administrator finally denies a Claim and the Claimant
9 disputes the denial, the Claims Administrator shall forward such Claims to Class Counsel and
10 Defendant’s counsel. The Parties through their respective counsel will engage in good faith efforts to
11 resolve the dispute as to that Claim (each party to bear his, her or its own respective costs for such
12 efforts). If counsel are unable to resolve the dispute, the Claimant may then appeal the denial of the
13 Claim to the National Center for Dispute Settlement (“NCDS”), which is a third-party neutral, provided
14 that any such appeal must be filed within sixty (60) days of final denial by the Settlement Administrator
15 and any decision by the NCDS will be final and binding upon the Parties. The appeal to the NCDS will
16 be resolved without a formal hearing or trial process. AHM will pay any cost charged by the NCDS for
17 resolving the appeal, however, the Parties shall be responsible for paying his, her or its respective
18 attorneys’ fees and other expenses if he, she, or it decide to retain counsel.
19 All approved Claims will be paid by the Claims Administrator by the applicable Approved
20 Claim Payment Deadline. AHM will issue separate checks directly to Claimants. Payments for
21 approved Claims will be made by the Approved Claims Payment Date in the form of a check that must
22 be cashed within ninety (90) days from the date of issuance, as stated on the face of the check. If the
23 checks remain uncashed or expire, they can be reissued to the claimant upon request. If no request is
24 made for a new check, funds on expired checks will revert back to AHM.
25 7. Proposed Attorneys’ Fees, Litigation Expenses, and Service Awards
26 The Parties have agreed that an award of attorneys’ fees, expenses, or service awards will not in 27 any way reduce the Settlement Class benefits. (See Settlement Agreement § IX.) Subject to Court 28 approval, Defendants have agreed to pay Class Counsel’s attorneys’ fees and litigation expenses up to a
9 PLAINTIFFS’ MOTION FOR FINAL APPROVAL OF CLASS ACTION SETTLEMENT
1 combined sum of $644,750. (Id.) Subject to Court approval, Defendants have also agreed to pay service
2 awards to the named Class Representatives for their efforts to secure relief on behalf of the Settlement
3 Class, in the sum of $2,500 each. Both the service award and Class Counsel’s fees will be paid by
4 AHM separate from the benefits to the Settlement Class. (Id.)
5 //
6 E. Class Counsel’s Ongoing Efforts To Enforce The Settlement Terms
7 Following this Court’s order granting preliminary approval and dissemination of the Class 8 Notice, Class Counsel received over eight hundred (800) calls from Class Members inquiring as to how 9 they can participate in the class action settlement. Margarian Decl. ¶ 5. The Class Members also had 10 questions as to the scope of benefits. Id. Class Counsel answered Class Members’ questions, including 11 following up when needed, and is continuing to monitor the response of Class Members to the 12 Settlement. Class Counsel expects to field many more calls from Class Members in the ensuing 13 months. (Id.) As part of their service to Class Members, Class Counsel researched the laws in different 14 states regarding the obligations of automobile repair businesses to maintain purchase and repair records 15 as to better advise Class Members who have lost or misplaced their repair documents. Id. 16 Moreover, Class Counsel called over two hundred twenty Acura dealerships – across all fifty 17 states as well as Puerto Rico – to confirm that Defendants have advised them of the Class Action 18 Settlement and that they are aware of their obligations under that Settlement. Margarian Decl. ¶ 5. 19 Class Counsel personally spoke to either the Service Manager or the Service Advisor at numerous 20 Service Centers to ensure that the dealerships understand the terms and conditions of the Settlement. Id. 21 ¶ 5. In the course of these conversations, Class Counsel also learned that many of Acura dealerships 22 contacted had performed piston repairs under the Settlement terms. Based on this rigorous monitoring 23 effort, Class Counsel is satisfied that Defendants are complying with their duty to properly advise 24 Acura dealerships of their obligations to provide piston repairs to Class Members pursuant to the terms 25 of the Settlement. Id. ¶ 5. Indeed, the warranty data for the Powertrain Warranty Period and Powertrain 26 Warranty Gap Period repairs paid for by AHM to date is proof positive that AHM is honoring its 27 settlement obligations and that 15,383 Class Members (4,481 under the Powertrain Warranty Period 28 and 10,902 under the Powertrain Warranty Gap Period) have made claims for and have already
10 PLAINTIFFS’ MOTION FOR FINAL APPROVAL OF CLASS ACTION SETTLEMENT
1 received the substantial warranty repair benefits made available under the Settlement at an approximate
2 total warranty cost of $68,700,000 ($19,700,000 for the Powertrain Warranty Period rapairs and
3 $49,000,000 for the Powertrain Warranty Gap Period repairs). Janik Decl. ¶ 2. AHM forecasts that up
4 to an additional $11.4 million in costs will be incurred under the warranty extensions based on
5 estimated 2,559 additional claims that could be made for the Class Vehicles prior to the expiration of
6 the Powertrain Warranty Period. Id.
7 III. ARGUMENT
8 A. The Court Should Grand Final Approval Of the Class Action Settlement
9 Before granting final approval of a class actions ettlement, a revising court must first find that 10 the settlement “is fair, reasonable, and adequate.” Dunk v Ford Motor Co. (1996) 48 Cal.App.4th 1794, 11 1800 [56 Cal.Rpt.2d 483] (citing Officers for Justice v. Civil Serv. Comm’n. (9th Cir. 1982) 688 F.2d 12 615, 625; Fed. R. Civ. P. 23(e)). In evaluating whether a class settlement is fair, adequate, and 13 reasonable, couts generally refer to eight criteria, with differing degrees of emphasis: the likelihood of 14 success by plaintiff, the amount of discovery or evidence, the settlement terms and conditions, the 15 recommendation and experience of counsel, the future expense and likely duration of litigation, the 16 recommendation of neutral parties, if any, the number of objectors and the nature of objections, and the
17 presence of good faith and the absence of collusion. 2 Herbert B. Newberg & Alba Conte, Newberg on 18 Class Actions (“Newberg”) § 11.43 “General Criteria for Settlement Approval” (3rd ed. 1992). This list 19 is “not exhaustive and should be tailored to each case.” Dunk v. Ford Motor Co., supra, 48 Cal.App.4th 20 at 1801.
21 A settlement following sufficient disvoery and genuine arm’s length negotiation is presumed 22 fair. Dunk v. Ford Motor Co., supra, 48 Cal.App.4th at 1802. Knight v. Red Door Salons, Inc. (N.D. 23 Cal. Feb. 2, 2009, No. C 08-1520-SC) 2009 WL 248367, at *4; see also Garner v. State Farm Mut. Inc. 24 Co. (N.D. Cal. Apr. 22, 2010, No. C 081365 CW (EMC)) 2010 WL 1687832, at *13 (“Where a 25 settlement is the product of arms-length negotations cconducted by capable and experienced counse, 26 the court begins its analysis with a presumption that the settlement is fair and reasonable.”). This is 27 because “[t]the extent of the discovery conducted to date and the sate of the litigation are both 28
11 PLAINTIFFS’ MOTION FOR FINAL APPROVAL OF CLASS ACTION SETTLEMENT
1 indicators of counsel’s familiarity with the case and of Plaintiffs having enough information to make
2 informed decisions.” Knight, 2009 248367, a *4.
3 In the end, “[s]ettlement is the offspring of compromise; the question we address is not whether
4 the final product could be better, smarter or snazzier, but whether it is fair, adequate and free from
5 collusion.” Hanlon v. Chrysler Corp. (9th Cir. 1998) 150 F.3d 1011, 1027; see also Dunk v. Ford Motor
6 Co., supra, 48 Cal.App.4th at 1801 (“Ultimately, the trial court’s determination is nothing more than an
7 amalgam of delicate balancing, gross approximations and rough justice”) (internal quotations and
8 marks omitted). Here, the record before the Court amply demonstrates that the Settlement satisfied this
9 standard and that final approval is appropriate.
10 1. The Stage Of The Proceedings, Discovery and Unlikelihood of Success Beyond The Benefits Within The Settlement Favor Settlement Approval 11 Plaintiffs engaged in extensive investigation and discovery, including pre-litigation 12 investigation, interviewing numerous prospective class members to fully assess the merits of Plaintiffs’ 13 claims, AMH’s response to oil consumption complaints in Class Vehicles, reviewing online 14 complaints, expert discovery, researching the suitability of the class representatives, assessing AMH’s 15 defenses, researching and analyzing discovery produced by AHM, and deposing AHM’s PMK on 16 issues relating to Plaintiff’s claims. Margarian Decl. ¶ 4. These combined efforts enabled Plaintiffs to 17 test their own assumptions regarding the merits of the case. Id. ¶ 4. 18 Based on this discovery and independent investigation and evaluation, Class Counsel is of the 19 opinion that the Settlement is fair, reasonable, and adequate, and is in the best interests of the 20 Settlement Class in light of all known facts and circumstances, including the risk of significant delay 21 and uncertainty associated with litigation of this type, as well as the various defenses asserted by AHM. 22 (Id. ¶ 5.) Based on thorough investigation regarding the merits and scope of the class claims, the parties 23 are now well-informed about the legal and factual issues in the case, enabling them to reach an 24 adequate, fair and reasonable settlement. Id. ¶ 5. 25 The Settlement offers Class Members full relief for any excessive oil consumption claims. It 26 extends the original powertrain warranty for the vehicles by two years and 55,000 additional miles. 27 Futher, the Settlement offers full reimbursement for past, eligible out of pocket costs necessitated by 28
12 PLAINTIFFS’ MOTION FOR FINAL APPROVAL OF CLASS ACTION SETTLEMENT
1 excessive oil consumption concerns. Thus, it is highly unlikely that continued litigation will provide
2 the class with additional relief, above and beyond the substantial benefits made available to the Class
3 via the terms of the Settlement Agreement. Further, it is well known that any trial carries inherent risk.
4 Plaintiffs and class members are not assured of success on their claims. Nor are they likely to receive
5 relief that exceeds the substantial relief already provided to them through the Settlement. Lastly, the
6 class vehicles here are up to 11 years old. It may be an additional one or two years until this case can
7 be tried (a fact further complicated by the current pandemic). Thus, absent Settlement, the Class
8 Members will be forced to pay for repairs that may be needed to address their excessive oil
9 consumption complaint. As such, delaying settlement will likely harm the Class Members more than
10 potentially benefit them.
11 2. The Benefits of The Settlement Favor Final Approval and Suffer From No Obvious Deficiencies 12 The Settlement is an excellent outcome for the Settlement Class and provides substantial, 13 meaningfull relief. The proof for this is in the following data for the actual benefits already conferred 14 under warranty extensions to date: 15 Warranty Total Class Vehicles Repairs Approx. Total 16 Claimed Under Warranty Warranty Cost for 17 Extensions Claimed Repairs Powertrain Warranty Period 4,481 Class Vehicles $19,700,000.00 18 (8 year/125,000 miles)
19 Powertrain Warranty Gap Period 10,902 Class Vehicles $49,000,000.00 (6 months after Warranty 20 Extension Notice, regardless of 21 mileage/years in service)
22 Total To Date 15,383 Class Vehicles $68,700,000.00
23 ------
24 Projected additional claims 2,559 Class Vehicles $11,700,000.00 through end of settlement’s 25 warranty extension period 26 Total Projected 17,942 Class Vehicles $80,400,000.00 27
28
13 PLAINTIFFS’ MOTION FOR FINAL APPROVAL OF CLASS ACTION SETTLEMENT
1 Janik Decl. ¶¶ 2, 3. Indeed, the Settlement benefits properly address the Plaintiffs’ primary complaint –
2 that some Class Vehicles may consume an excessive amount of engine oil, and that Class Members are
3 forced to cover the cost of this issue, after the original warranty period, out-of-pocket. The Settlement
4 thus provides for reimbursement of out-of-pocket expenses relating to excessive oil consumption
5 complaints prior to the Class Notice, and a warranty extension that will cover future Piston Repairs
6 should the need airse. The warranty extension includes both an extension of coverage to 8
7 years/125,000 miles, whichever occurs first, and a 6-month warranty gap period for vehicles that
8 exceeded the extended Powertrain Warranty Period coverage parameters at the time of settlement.
9 These results are in line with what Plaintiffs expected to recover at trial. As such, the Settlement
10 prevents the risks and costs of a trial and provides an immediate, tangible, and desired remedy.
11 Given the significant, straightforward and full nature of the relief versus the uncertainties of
12 protracted litigation, the settlement is well within the range of approval.
13 3. The Views Of Experienced Counsel Should Be Accorded Substantial Weight
14 Plaintiffs have retained highly capable counsel with experience in consumer class action 15 litigation, particularly with respect to automotive defects. Plaintiffs’ counsel has procured significant 16 results on behalf of class members in other consumer class actions. Margarian Decl. ¶¶ 6-7. Plaintiffs’ 17 counsel has also exclusively practiced consumer protection litigation for over a decade, representing 18 thousands of consumers in automotive defects cases, giving Plaintiffs’ counse a breadth and depth of 19 experience. Likewise, AHM’s lead counsel has extensive experience litigating automotive class 20 actions, and class actions generally, and has secured several precedent-setting class action decisions in 21 the United States Supreme Court (Lamps Plus v. Varela, 139 S. Ct. 1407 (2019), United State Court of 22 Appeals for the Ninth Circuit (Mazza v. American Honda Motor Co., Inc., 666 F.3d 581 (9th Cir. 2012); 23 Yamada v. Nobel Biocare Holding AG, 821 F.3d 1058 (9th Cir. 2016)), and the California Court of 24 Appeal (Daugherty v. America Honda Motor Co., Inc., 144 Cal. App. 4th 824 (2006)). As such, the 25 Parties are well-positioned to make informed judgments regarding the merits of the case, the odds of 26 success at trial, and the quality of the Settlement.
27
28
14 PLAINTIFFS’ MOTION FOR FINAL APPROVAL OF CLASS ACTION SETTLEMENT
1 Furtheremore, the Settlement was negotiated with the assistance of the Hon. Howard Weiner
2 during the course of several months, with two (2) full days of in person mediation. All counsel and the
3 Hon. Howard Weiner were in agreement that the results were fair and appropriate for the Class.
4 4. The Reaction of The Class Members to the Proposed Settlement Favors Final Approval and the Seven Settlement Objectors Present No Argument To 5 Warrant a Contrary Conclusion
6 Out of a Settlement Class with 429,191 Class Members, only seven (7) have objected to the 7 Settlement and just one hundred one (101) Class Members have opted out. Kim Decl. ¶¶ 7, 11. The 8 extraordinarily small number of objections and opt outs in this 429,000-plus person Class is dispositive 9 proof the Settlement is abundantly fair, adequate, and reasonable, and that Class Members are satisfied 10 with the Settlement. See 7-Eleven Owners for Fair Franchising v. Southland Corp., 85 Cal. App. 4th 11 1135, 1152-1153 (2000) (court found the response of the class members “overwhelmingly positive” 12 where “a mere 80 of the 5,454 noticed class members elected to opt out” and nine objected); Wershba, 13 91 Cal. App. 4th at 250-51 (concluding settlement represented “a reasonable compromise in light of all 14 the facts” where there were 20 objections in putative class of approximately 2.4 million class members); 15 accord Rodriguez v. West Pub. Corp., 563 F.3d 948, 967 (9th Cir. 2009) (explaining the “court ha[s] 16 discretion to find a favorable reaction … among class members” where there were “only fifty-four 17 submitted objections” out of 376,301 class members); Churchill Village, L.L.C. v. Gen. Elec., 361 F.3d 18 566, 577 (9th Cir. 2004) (affirming approval of class settlement with 45 objections from a 90,000 person 19 class). 20 In addition, the seven objections here stand in stark contrast to the 15,383 Class Members (4,481
21 under the Powertrain Warranty Period and 10,902 under the Powertrain Warranty Gap Period) who 22 already have claimed repairs under the Settlement’s warranty extension benefit. Janik Decl. ¶2. Indeed, 23 the objections are from individual Class Members who express general disapproval of the Settlement 24 that, to date, has already delivered $68,700,000 in confirmed benefits to the Class, and that is forecasted 25 to deliver an additional $11,700,000 in future repairs, if claimed by the Class, prior to the expiration of 26 the Powertrain Warranty Period. Id. ¶3. . Id. Yet the objectors claim this extraordinary settlement is 27 still deficient because it does not meet their subjective expectations or provide additional (though 28
15 PLAINTIFFS’ MOTION FOR FINAL APPROVAL OF CLASS ACTION SETTLEMENT
1 unrealistic) relief. No objector presents a credible obstacle to final approval. Thus, all seven objections
2 should be overruled.
3 First, as numerous state and federal cases have repeatedly recognized, a settlement is the
4 offspring of compromise. Thus, the question that must be addressed here is not whether the final product
5 could be “prettier, smarter or snazzier, but whether it is fair, adequate and free from collusion.” Hanlon,
6 150 F.3d at 1027 (9th Cir. 1998); Wershba, 91 Cal. App. 4th at 250 (“Compromise is inherent and
7 necessary in the settlement process” and “the public interest may indeed be served by a voluntary
8 settlement in which each side gives ground in the interest of avoiding litigation” even if 100% of the
9 benefits in a fully litigated and victorious case are not achieved). Objector claims that a settlement could
10 have been different or better generally do not provide a valid basis to deny final approval.
11 Second, the objectors bear the burden of proving any assertions they raise challenging the
12 reasonableness of a settlement. Dunk, 48 Cal. App. 4th at 1800 (1996); 7-Eleven Owners, 85 Cal. App.
13 4th at 1165-66 (affirming that burden is on objectors once presumption of fairness is established by
14 settling parties). This is because “a presumption of fairness exists where [as here]: (1) the settlement is
15 reached through arm’s-length bargaining; (2) investigation and discovery are sufficient to allow counsel
16 and the court to act intelligently; (3) counsel is experienced in similar litigation; and (4) the percentage
17 of objectors is small.” Dunk, 48 Cal. App. 4th at 1802.
18 As demonstrated below, none of the six objections raise valid arguments that would preclude
19 final approval of the Settlement. The Court should overrule each objection.
20 (a) Stephen Glass Objection (Received February 26, 2020)
21 Objector Stephen Glass claims the settlement should not be approved because (1) it does not 22 reimburse him the $192.36 an Acura dealership charged for an oil change after an oil consumption test 23 showed his vehicle did not exhibit excessive oil consumption, and (2) “the Settlement should include 24 some compensation for … financial harm [he] suffered” when, ostensibly as a result of the oil 25 consumption, he chose to sell his nine year old Acura MDX and buy another vehicle. Mr. Glass’ 26 objection is unfounded and should be overruled. 27 First, AHM’s “Job Aid” (distributed to dealers in updated form in February 2019) makes clear 28 that an oil consumption test only requires that the oil level be full (or topped off to full) before an oil
16 PLAINTIFFS’ MOTION FOR FINAL APPROVAL OF CLASS ACTION SETTLEMENT
1 consumption test commences. Kudo Decl. ¶¶ 4, 6. Thus, any charge Mr. Glass had to pay for an oil
2 change was not associated with the oil consumption test process AHM sent to dealers. Id. Mr. Glass
3 claims he went to an Acura dealership in April 2019, after receiving the February 2019 Warranty
4 Extension Notice under the Settlement, because his “MDX suddenly used excessive oil between oil
5 changes.” And testing revealed Mr. Glass’ car consumed ½ a quart of oil after 1,000 miles of driving,
6 which means the vehicle did not exhibit excessive oil consumption—i.e. 1 quart or more of oil after
7 1,000 miles of driving. Id. 6(d). This “excessive” oil consumption threshold is not unique to Honda.
8 See, e.g., https://www.cars.com/articles/how-much-oil-consumption-is-normal-1420682864535/ (normal
9 oil consumption can range from a quart of oil under 1,000 miles to a quart every two thousand miles,
10 with oil consumption being “expected” in cars with over 75,000 miles ). Thus, while Mr. Glass
11 challenges the Settlement based on the $192.36 oil change cost a dealer charged him and that he cannot
12 recover under the settlement, his underlying complaint is about the oil consumption test procedure used
13 in identifying if oil consumption is “excessive,” not the Settlement benefit itself. And in any event, the
14 oil change cost is not associated with the oil consumption test, which AHM’s notice to dealers makes
15 clear is not necessary.
16 Further, Honda did not develop a new oil consumption test just for this Settlement. Kudo Decl.
17 ¶ 5. Indeed, the testing procedure for “excessive oil consumption” claims under Settlement’s warranty
18 extensions (Powertrain Warranty Period and Powertrain Warranty Gap Period) is the same one that
19 Acura dealers use to evaluate excessive oil consumption claims during the Class Vehicles’ original
20 warranty period. Id. And under AHM’s original warranty, oil consumption is considered “excessive” if
21 an oil consumption test reveals the engine consumes 1quart or more of oil every 1,000 miles. Id. ¶ 6(d).
22 Ultiamtley, Mr. Glass’ nine year old MDX did not exhibit excessive oil consumption. His claim that the
23 Settlement should cover the cost of his oil change lacks merit.
24 Mr. Glass’ second claim that the settlement should provide “compensation” because he
25 ostensibly replaced his nine year old MDX “prematurely” also lacks merit. This is the typical objector
26 claim that a settlement could have been “prettier, smarter, or snazzier,” which does not state a valid
27 objection. Hanlon, 150 F.3d at 1027. And in any event, because Mr. Glass admits the oil consumption
28 test showed his car did not exhibit excessive oil consumption, his claim to compensation for the alleged
17 PLAINTIFFS’ MOTION FOR FINAL APPROVAL OF CLASS ACTION SETTLEMENT
1 “premature” sale of his car due to oil consumption lacks merit on its face. Mr. Glass’ objection should
2 be overruled.
3 (b) Joseph Giordano Objection (March 13, 2020)
4 Like Mr. Glass, Mr. Giordano takes issue with the oil consumption standard that is used to 5 evaluate an excessive oil consumption complaint. Mr. Giordano admits he received Acura’s February 6 2019 warranty extension notice under the settlement and took his vehicle in for an oil consumption test. 7 Mr. Giordano’s car consumed ½ a quart of oil every 1,000 miles and thus, the Acura dealer concluded 8 the vehicle did not exhibit excessive oil consumption. Mr. Giordano quarrels with this standard and 9 claims the dealer did not properly execute the test because the oil was “initially filled over the max oil 10 fill line” and because “[c]hecking oil via the dipstick is not a highly accurate way to determine the 11 amount of oil that was consumed ….” Mr. Giordano does not challenge the adequacy of the benefits 12 under the Settlement; he simply believes a more liberal standard should be used when deciding whether 13 oil consumption is “excessive.” This is not a proper settlement objection since, as stated above, the oil 14 consumption testing protocol was not developed specifically for this Settlement and is the same one that 15 applies to AHM’s normal warranty (Kudo Decl. ¶ 5) and to cars made by other automotive companies, 16 especially those with high-mileages when oil consumption is usually a normal by-product of wear and 17 engine age. 18 Mr. Giordano’s additional claim that “anyone who owned an affected vehicle should be entitled 19 to compensation as their overall engine performance and vehicle life has been impacted” also lacks 20 merit. First, the claim that “vehicle life has been impacted” is unsupported speculation. Further, this is 21 simply an assertion that a Settlement which has already delivered over $68,700,000 in confirmed 22 benefits to the Class should be “better” or do more. This is not a valid objection since, among other 23 things, “[a] settlement need not obtain 100 percent of the damages sought in order to be fair and 24 reasonable.” Wershba, 91 Cal. App. 4th at 250. And in any event, Mr. Giordano admits his car did not 25 exhibit excessive oil consumption under the excessive oil consumption standards. Thus, his claim to 26 compensation is—at best—for speculative harm that is not manifest in his vehicle. Mr. Giordano’s 27 objection should be overruled. 28
18 PLAINTIFFS’ MOTION FOR FINAL APPROVAL OF CLASS ACTION SETTLEMENT
1 (c) Amelia Lane Objection (Received March 30, 2020)
2 Ms. Amelia Lane objects to the settlement because “it does not define ‘excessive oil 3 consumption.’” As noted herein, whether the oil consumption in any Class Vehicle is “excessive” is not 4 standard that was developed for or that is specific to this Settlement. Kudo Decl. ¶ 5. Thus, Ms. Lane’s 5 objection also does not target a Settlement benefit. Further, Ms. Lane admits her vehicle consumes “one 6 quart of oil every 2,428 miles,” which is hardly “excessive” under any reasonable standard. Ms. Lane’s 7 objection should be overruled. 8 (d) James Copenhaver Objection (Received April 13, 2020)
9 Mr. Copenhaver presents three grounds for his objection, each of which are already addressed 10 herein, or are otherwise cured. He claims the Settlement should not be approved because (1) it does not 11 contain “objective criteria” for determining what level of oil consumption entitles a Class Member to a 12 warranty repair, (2) dealers were not “promptly or effectively” informed about the commencement of 13 the extended warranty provisions of the Settlement, and (3) the Class Notice provides an unclear 14 definition as to the “Powertrain Warranty Gap Period.” 15 As explained in response to the Glass, Giordano, and Lane objections, existing “objective 16 criteria,” which are not specific to this Settlement, do exist for identifying when oil consumption is
17 excessive. See Kudo Decl. ¶¶ 5, 6. This is why, in connection with the February 2019 Warranty 18 Extension Notice to Class Members, AHM published a Service Bulletin (19-006) that, among other 19 things, instructs dealers to follow existing oil consumption test procedures to determine if an engine is 20 consuming a normal amount of engine oil. Kudo Decl. ¶¶ 2, 4.
21 Moreover, there is no merit to the claim that dealers were not “promptly or effectively” notified. 22 In February 2019, AHM published Service Bulletin No. 19-006, entitled “Warranty Extension: Engine 23 Oil Consumption Exceeds Client Expectations.” Kudo Decl. ¶ 4 & Ex. B. The bulletin, which was sent 24 to all U.S. Acura dealers, informed them that (1) a customer letter has been sent about the warranty 25 extension, (2) “American Honda is extending the engine warranty related to oil consumption to 8 years 26 from the original date of purchase or 125,000 miles, whichever comes first,” and (3) “[w]arranty claims 27 submitted within 6 months of the client notification will be covered regardless of mileage or vehicle 28
19 PLAINTIFFS’ MOTION FOR FINAL APPROVAL OF CLASS ACTION SETTLEMENT
1 age.” Id. (emphasis in original). This customer letter is the “February 2019 mailing” (i.e. the “Warranty
2 Extension Notice”) Mr. Copenhaver admits he received.
3 Lastly, although Mr. Copenhaver admits he received the February 2019 Warranty Extension
4 Notice, he points to an ambiguity in the Class Notice as to when the Powertrain Warranty Gap Period
5 commences. But the February 2019 Warranty Extension Notice makes clear the six month Powertrain
6 Warranty Gap Period would be for the six month period following receipt of the Warranty Extension
7 Notice. Kudo Decl. ¶ 2, Ex. A (stating “Acura is extending the power-train warranty coverage to cover
8 engine issues related to excessive oil consumption form the original coverage of 6 years/70,000 miles to
9 8 years/125,000 miles, whichever comes first. To further ensure client satisfaction and confidence, any
10 affected vehicles from now [February 2019] until September 1, 2019 will be covered regardless of time
11 in service or mileage.”) This is consistent with the Settlement’s terms (Sec. III(A)), wherein AHM
12 agreed the warranty extension would be implemented upon signing of the Settlement and through a
13 separate customer notice. Regrettably, the original Class Notice contained a clerical error in the
14 Powertrain Warranty Gap Period definition. But a supplemental postcard notice will be sent to affected
15 Class Members by May 15, 2020 that corrects this clerical error and extends the opt-out and comment
16 period by three weeks (to June 5, 2020). Regardless, this ambiguity has not caused any prejudice since
17 over 10,000 Class Members have already made claims for a warranty repair during the intended gap
18 period—a confirmed Class valued at approximately $49,000,000. Janik Decl. ¶ 2.
19 (e) Allison Fischer Objection (Received April 15, 2020)
20 Ms. Fischer is a Los Angeles Superior Court research attorney who owns a 2012 Acura MDX.2 21 She presents five reasons for her objection. Most of the issues Ms. Fischer raises were previously 22 addressed, to the Court’s satisfaction, in Plaintiffs’ Supplememental Briefing On Issues Identified By 23 The Court On Checklist Re Preliminary Approval Of Class Action Settlement In Further Support Of 24 Motion For Preliminary Approval Of Class Action Settlement (“Supplemental Preliminary Approval 25 Brief”). And ultimately, each of these and other grounds set forth in Ms. Fischer’s objection are 26 addressed (or remedied). Thus, her objection should be overruled. 27 2 Ms. Fischer states she has worked for the Court, including for your Honor, but not on any matters related to this 28 case. The Parties have no concern that the Court will be fair and impartial in evaluating Ms. Fischer’s objection.
20 PLAINTIFFS’ MOTION FOR FINAL APPROVAL OF CLASS ACTION SETTLEMENT
1 First, Ms. Fischer states the Settlement should not be approved because there is “insufficient
2 information regarding the value of the claims being settled.” As this Court is aware, at the Court’s
3 request, the Parties addressed this issue in Plaintiffs’ Supplemental Preliminary Approval Brief (Sec.
4 II(A)). At that time, the Parties explained the Settlement’s warranty extension provides full relief since
5 it offers a free warranty repair for oil consumption concerns for 8 years and 125,000 miles (whichever
6 occurs first)—a far greater powertrain warranty period than the Class Vehicles’ original 5 year/60,000
7 mile powertrain warranty. And this does not account for the six-month gap period coverage when cars
8 would be repaired regardless of the time and mileage limits. The warranty extension provides for free
9 repair (a piston repair or replacement). And because the Settlement’s warranty extension was
10 implemented in February 2019, before preliminary approval, claims data exists to measure the actual
11 and confirmed value of the class benefit already conferred to the Class. As set forth in the concurrently-
12 filed declaration of James Janik, 15,383 total claims have already been made by Class Members under
13 the Settlement’s warranty extension, at an approximate cost of $68,700,000. Janik Decl. ¶ 2. AHM
14 forecasts an additional $11,400,000 in costs will be incurred based on estimated 2,559 additional claims
15 that AHM projects could be made for the Class Vehicles prior to the expiration of the Powertrain
16 Warranty Period. Id. ¶ 3. . These actual claim totals are vastly higher than the $25,000,000 warranty
17 extension cost the parties estimated in the Supplemental Preliminary Approval Brief. Of course, some
18 Class Vehicles may never experience “excessive” oil consumption. Thus, while all Class Members
19 received the benefit of a warranty extension under the Settlement, that they may not have needed a
20 repair under the warranty in no way diminishes the fact that they received substantial consideration for a
21 release of their claims.
22 Second, the warranty extension claims data for the Settlement also conclusively shows the
23 Settlement benefits are anything but “illusory.” Ms. Fischer argues the warranty extension is
24 “completely worthless” since owners of 2010, 2011, or 2012 model year vehicles will not benefit from
25 the settlement. Yet the Powertrain Warranty Gap Period data shows that over 10,000 Class Vehicles
26 that are outside the 8-year/125,000-mile warranty period have already claimed a combined $49,000,000
27 in Class benefits under the Settlement. Janik Decl. ¶ 2. The concern Ms. Fischer highlights about the
28 possible exclusion of 2010, 2011, and 2012 model year vehicle owners from the Settlement’s warranty
21 PLAINTIFFS’ MOTION FOR FINAL APPROVAL OF CLASS ACTION SETTLEMENT
1 extension benefit is precisely why AHM included a gap period benefit. And it is also why AHM
2 implemented the Settlement’s warranty extension immediately after the agreement was signed, without
3 the security of at least a preliminary approval from this Court (which came almost eight months after
4 AHM implemented the Settlement’s warranty extensions). If $68,700,000 in benefits actually conferred
5 to date through this Settlement (Janik Decl. ¶ 2) are deemed illusory, few (if any) class action
6 settlements should get final approval. And ultimately, a settlement is not judged against what might
7 have been recovered had a plaintiff prevailed at trial—a settlement need not recover 100% of the
8 damages sought in litigation to be fair and reasonable. Wershba, (2001) 9l Cal. App. 4th 224, 246, 250.
9 Third, the concern about AHM self-administering the Settlement was addressed, also to the
10 Court’s satisfaction, on preliminary approval. As explained in the Supplemental Preliminary Approval
11 Brief (Sec. III(A)), it is common for a defendant with the ability and experience to administer claims to
12 self-administer a settlement. AHM has this experience, as reflected by its appointment as settlement
13 administrator in the following class actions in both state and federal courts alike:
14 - Durm v. American Honda Finance Corporation, District of Maryland Case No. 13-cv-
15 00223;
16 - Davitt v. American Honda Motor Co., Inc., District of New Jersey Case No. 2:13-cv-
17 0038;
18 - Keegan v. American Honda Motor Co., Inc., Central District of California Case No. 2:10-
19 cv-09508-MMM-AJW;
20 - Zakskorn v. American Honda Motor Co., Inc., Eastern District of California Case No.
21 2:11-cv-02610;
22 - Soto v. American Honda Motor Co., Inc., Northern District of California Case No. 3:12-
23 cv-01377;
24 - Cordero v. American Honda Finance Corp. dba Honda Financial Services, San Mateo
25 County Superior Court, Case No. CIV531470;
26 - In Re: American Honda Motor Co., Inc., CR-V Vibration Marketing & Sales Practices
27 Litigation, S.D. of Ohio Case No. 2:15-MD-02661;
28 - Gutierrez, et al. v. American Honda Motor Co. Inc., Central District of California Case
22 PLAINTIFFS’ MOTION FOR FINAL APPROVAL OF CLASS ACTION SETTLEMENT
1 No. 5:09-cv-01517.
2 Kim Decl. ¶ 2. Even though this Court approved AHM as the claims administrator for this Settlement,
3 see Preliminary Approval Order, ¶ 10, and with no evidence to support her claim, Ms. Fischer speculates
4 AHM will act improperly and will be motivated to deny claims to “pay out as little as possible ….” The
5 $68.7 million in warranty claims AHM has already paid and/or approved under the settlement alone
6 proves this concern is unfounded. And even if a Class Member is dissatisfied with AHM’s decision on a
7 claim, “all decision making power” has not been handed to AHM. Section V(E) of the Settlement
8 provides that disputed claims can be submitted to the National Center for Dispute Settlement (“NCDS”)
9 at no cost to the Class Member. AHM is required to pay all NCDS costs and NCDS’ decision is binding
10 upon the parties.3
11 Fourth, Ms. Fischer’s concerns about the scope of the release were also addressed in the
12 Supplemental Preliminary Approval Brief (Sec. III(D), also to the Court’s satisfaction. Ultimately, Ms.
13 Fischer’s concerns on this issue are also misplaced and incorrect. Ms. Fischer argues the release is so
14 broad that if she, “or any other class member, suffer[s] any injury as a result of a vehicle malfunction,
15 Defendant will have a strong argument that any possible right to recovery was released as a result of this
16 settlement.” Yet the Settlement paragraph that immediately follows the release language Ms. Fischer
17 quotes unambiguously states “[t]he Settlement Agreement does not release claims for personal injury,
18 property damage other than to the Class Vehicles, or claims for subrogation.” Settlement Agreement,
19 Sec. VIII(C). The remaining scope of the release is hardly overbroad. Class Members release claims
20 relating to the Class Vehicles’ Pistons, Piston Rings, or oil consumption in the Class Vehicles—the very
21 complaints and engine components that are covered by the Powertrain Warranty Extension. Kudo Decl.
22 ¶ 4 & Ex. B. Thus, the scope of the release is commensurate with the claims and vehicle components
23 that are included in the Settlement benefits. To the extent Ms. Fischer is concerned about extending a
24 California Civil Code § 1542 release to the Class Members’ potential claims, there is no such
25 prohibition under California law, as addressed to the Court’s satisfaction in the Supplemental 26 3 Ms. Fischer takes issue, in passing, to a settlement website notice that advised Class Members that, due to the 27 pandemic, the administrator is unable to take class member calls regarding the Settlement. This, however, was in effect for a very limited time (staffing adjustments necessitated by the pandemic limited the operational hours on 28 a few days). Kim Decl. ¶ __. And Class Counsel was always available to answer Class Member calls.
23 PLAINTIFFS’ MOTION FOR FINAL APPROVAL OF CLASS ACTION SETTLEMENT
1 Preliminary Approval Brief (Sec. III(E) (citing Carter v. City of Los Angeles (2014) 224 Cal. App. 4th
2 808, 820-21 (recognizing it is well established that “[a] general release—covering ‘all claims’ that were
3 or could have been raised in the suit—is common in class action settlements.”)). Nevertheless, if the
4 Court is concerned about including a 1542 release as to the Class in the final approval order and
5 judgment, the parties agree that the section 1542 release provisions to the class representatives.
6 Finally, the Parties agree that, to the extent necessary, the final approval order may provide for
7 the entry of judgment, without a dismissal of the action, such that the Court may retain jurisdiction over
8 the Parties to enforce the terms of the judgment. The proposed final approval order submitted
9 concurrently herewith complies with this requirement of California Rules of Court, Rule 3.769(h).
10 (f) Ignacio Del Tore Objection (Received April 15, 2020)
11 Mr. Del Tore’s objection is based on a misunderstanding of what the oil consumption test entails. 12 He complains the gap period should be extended “to at least one year” because an oil consumption test 13 “involves a 3,000 mile test” with three dealership visits at 1,000 mile intervals, as well as an initial 14 dealership visit at the start of the oil consumption test. Mr. Del Tore is misinformed. An oil 15 consumption test is not a 3,000 mile test. See Kudo Decl. ¶¶ 4 (Ex. A), 6. Nor does it require extensive 16 driving during the current COVID-19 pandemic. As made clear by the Warranty Extension Notice 17 AHM sent to Class Members in February 2019, the gap period commenced with the Warranty Extension 18 notice, not during the pandemic. Id. ¶ 2. Further, the oil consumption test only requires 1,000 miles of 19 driving, without time limitations as to when this distance must be covered. Id. ¶ 6(a)-(d). Mr. Del 20 Tore’s objection is based on a misunderstanding and should be overruled. 21 (g) Darwin G. Yung Objection (Received April 29, 2020)
22 Mr. Yung claims he “do[es] not like the settlement” because it does not address “[his] situation,” 23 which he claims is owning a car that, following an oil consumption test, showed was consuming one 24 quart of oil every 2,476 miles. Mr. Yung says he would like to “see a settlement that includes all of us 25 with bad piston rings in our MDX’s” and thus, he should have “within 2 years, to have our piston rings 26 replaced ….” But the oil consumption test Mr. Yung admits he received under the warranty extension 27 conclusively shows that his car does not exhibit excessive oil consumption (1 quart/2,476 miles). Thus, 28 the factual underpinning for his entire objection is without merit. Mr. Yung simply prefers a settlement
24 PLAINTIFFS’ MOTION FOR FINAL APPROVAL OF CLASS ACTION SETTLEMENT
1 that offers a different (broader) benefit that he is not entitled to receive. His objection should be
2 overruled.
3 B. The Settlement is the Result of Informed, Non-Collusive Negotiations, Entitling It To A Presumption Of Fairness 4 Settlements are the preferred means of dispute resolution, especially in class actions in which 5 substantial resources can be conserved by avoiding the time, costs, and rigor of lengthy litigation. See 6 Officers for Justice v. Civil Serv. Comm’n (9th Cir. 1982) 688 F.2d 615, 625, cert. denied (1983) 459 7 U.S. 1217 (“[V]oluntary conciliation and settlement are the preferred means of dispute resolution. This 8 is especially true in complex class action litigation.”). Arm’s length negotiations conducted by 9 competent legal counsel constitute prima facie evidence of fair settlements. See Dunk v. Ford Motors 10 Co., supra, 48 Cal.App.4th at 1802; M. Berenson Co., Inc., v. Faneuil Hall Marketplace, Inc. (D. Mass. 11 1987) 671 F. Supp. 819, 822 (“where … a proposed class settlement has been reached after meaningful 12 discovery, after arm’s-length negotiation by capable counsel, it is presumptively fair”). The settlement 13 in the present matter is a result of in-depth, arm’s-length negotiations between experienced attorneys 14 who are knowledgeable of class action litigation in general and with the legal and factual issues of this 15 case in particular. Margarian Decl. ¶ 3. 16 The parties’ negotiations of the Settlement involved several substantive and procedural issues. 17 Plaintiffs’ counsel had carefully investigated the underlying factual claims before filing of the initial 18 complaint and discovery showed AHM had received complaints of oil consumption in Class Vehicle 19 (regardless of whether such consumption was verified or confirmed). With the benefit of discovery, the 20 parties engaged in a settlement discussion. After two days of mediation sessions with the assistance of 21 the Hon. Howard Weiner, the parties reached a resolution. Plaintiffs’ counsel was resolute on reaching 22 a fair and appropriate resolution for the Class. Ultimately, the parties agreed upon a class action 23 settlement that would compensate Class Members for out of pocket expenses, extend their warranty 24 coverage terms, and provide repairs. This Settlement is a result of years of experience with automotive 25 defects litigation, negotiations in such cases, and thorough familiarity with the facts of this case. 26 Plaintiffs’ Counsel wholeheartedly contends that the resulting settlement is fair and provides a 27 reasonable relief to the settlement class members. Margarian Decl. ¶¶ 4-6. 28
25 PLAINTIFFS’ MOTION FOR FINAL APPROVAL OF CLASS ACTION SETTLEMENT
1 THE MARGARIAN LAW FIRM HOVANES MARGARIAN (SBN: 246359) 2 SHUSHANIK MARGARIAN (SBN: 318617) 801 N. Brand Blvd., Suite 210 3 Glendale, CA 91203 4 Telephone: (818) 553-1000 Facsimile: (818) 553-1005 5 [email protected]
6 Attorneys for Plaintiffs, ARMEN G. KOJIKIAN 7 TIME TRADERS, INC. 8 SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA 9 FOR THE COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES, CENTRAL DISTRICT 10 ARMEN G. KOJIKIAN, as an individual, on ) Case No.: BC606392 11 behalf of himself, all others similarly situated, ) ) 12 and the general public; TIME TRADERS, Class Action INC., a California corporation, on behalf of ) ) 13 itself, all others similarly situated, and the ) Hon. Daniel J. Buckley general public ) 14 ) DECLARATION OF HOVANES MARGARIAN Plaintiffs, ) IN SUPPORT OF PLAINTIFFS’ MOTION FOR 15 ) FINAL APPROVAL OF CLASS ACTION ) 16 vs. SETTLEMENT ) ) 17 AMERICAN HONDA MOTOR CO., INC., a ) Date: July 14, 2020 California corporation; and DOES 1 through ) Time: 11:00 a.m. 18 100, inclusive, ) Place: Department 1 ) 19 Defendants. ) ) 20 ) ) 21 ) ) 22 ) ) 23 ) ) 24 25
26
27
28
4835-9649-2475.1 DECLARATION OF HOVANES MARGARIAN IN SUPPORT OF PLAINTIFFS’ MOTION FOR PFINAL APPROVAL OF CLASS ACTION SETTLEMENT
1 I, Hovanes Margarian, declare and state that:
2 1. I am an attorney licensed to practice law in the State of California and in this Court, and
3 am a partner in the Margarian Law Firm (the “Firm”), counsel of record for Plaintiffs and the Class in
4 the above captioned matter. I submit this declaration in support of Plaintiffs’ Motion for Final Approval
5 of Class Action Settlement. Unless otherwise noted, I have personal knowledge of the facts set forth in
6 this declaration and could and would testify competently to them if called upon to do so.
7 Plaintiffs’ Prosecution of This Action
8 2. I have been the attorney primarily responsible for representing Plaintiffs Armen G.
9 Kojikian (“Kojikian”) and Time Traders, Inc. and the putative class from the inception of this case. I met
10 with Kojikian when he first inquired with my law firm in regard to defects exhibited by his vehicle.
11 3. Prior to and after filing of this action, I (along with attorneys and staff at my firm) fielded
12 inquiries from numerous prospective class members to fully assess the merits of Plaintiffs’ claims,
13 American Honda Motor Co., Inc.’s (“AHM” or “Defendant”) response to oil consumption complaints in
14 Class Vehicles, consulted and retained automotive experts, researched the suitability of the class
15 representatives, researched publicly available materials and information provided by the National
16 Highway Traffic Safety Administration (“NHTSA”) concerning consumer complaints about excessive
17 oil consumption, reviewed and researched consumer complaints and discussions of excessive oil
18 consumption in articles and forums online, reviewed various manuals and technical service bulletins
19 discussing the alleged defect, conducted research into the various causes of actions, assessed AHM
20 defenses, drafted the Complaint, the First Amended Complaint (“FAC”), an opposition to a demurrer, an
21 opposition to a motion to strike, and presented oral arguments on the aforementioned motions.
22 4. I along with others at my firm (acting at my direction and with my oversight) also
23 propounded discovery on Defendant. In response, Defendant produced extensive warranty claims data
24 and hundreds of pages of documents, including: owners’ manuals, maintenance and warranty manuals,
25 design documents (e.g., technical drawings), technical service bulletins, field reports, customer
26 comments detail reports, and other documents.
27 //
28 //
2 4835-9649-2475.1 DECLARATION OF HOVANES MARGARIAN IN SUPPORT OF PLAINTIFFS’ MOTION FOR FINAL APPROVAL OF CLASS ACTION SETTLEMENT
1 5. I prepared for and guided my associate attorney in taking the deposition of Defendant’s
2 PMK. The testimony from AHM’s PMK formed the basis of my negotiations and gives me confidence
3 that the settlement the parties’ achieved is fair and reasonable.
4 6. Based on this thorough investigation regarding the merits and scope of the class claims,
5 the Plaintiffs and I became well-informed about the legal and factual issues in the case, enabling us to
6 engage in negotiations to secure an adequate, fair and reasonable settlement. The settlement in this case
7 provides a complete remedy to Plaintiffs and the class because it addresses the heart of the complaint in
8 this action—that AHM, not consumers, should be responsible for costs incurred post-warranty by
9 consumers to remedy excessive oil consumption issues. Thus, the settlement provides for (1)
10 reimbursement for past out-of-pocket costs incurred to remedy an excessive oil consumption complaint,
11 and (2) a full, free repair for excessive oil consumption complaints post-settlement in the form of a
12 generous warranty extension that added two years and 55,000 additional miles to Acura’s original 6
13 year/70,000 powertrain warranty.
14 7. Along with Defense counsel, I scheduled and attended a mediation session with the Hon.
15 Howard Weiner in early January 2018, followed by a second session on March 29, 2018. During these
16 mediation sessions we worked relentlessly to negotiate a fair settlement. In advance of the mediations, I
17 submitted mediation briefs setting forth Plaintiffs’ positions. At mediation, we were able to reach an
18 agreement on all material terms of the proposed relief to the Class, subject only to AHM’s corporate
19 approval. Only after we had reached this agreement did we negotiate attorneys’ fees, costs, and incentive
20 awards. Ultimately, we reached an agreement on these terms as well. Subsequent to the mediation, inter
21 alia, we formalized the Settlement Agreement, including drafting and finalizing the notice to the class
22 and claim form.
23 8. The settlement in the present matter is a result of in-depth, arm’s-length negotiations
24 between experienced attorneys who are knowledgeable of class action litigation in general and with the
25 legal and factual issues of this case in particular.
26 9. The Settlement Agreement is fair, reasonable, and adequate, and is in the best interests of
27 the settlement class in light of all known facts and circumstances, including the risk of significant delay
28
3 4835-9649-2475.1 DECLARATION OF HOVANES MARGARIAN IN SUPPORT OF PLAINTIFFS’ MOTION FOR FINAL APPROVAL OF CLASS ACTION SETTLEMENT
1 and uncertainty associated with litigation of this type, as well as the various defenses asserted by
2 Defendant.
3 10. I fully and wholeheartedly contend that the resulting settlement is fair and provides a
4 reasonable relief to the settlement class members.
5 Evaluation of the Proposed Settlement Agreement
6 11. The Settlement was derived after extensive, arm’s-length negotiations between the parties
7 that included two (2) full days of mediation and a great deal of coordination in between and after the
8 mediation sessions. I was resolute on reaching a fair and appropriate resolution for the Class.
9 12. The Settlement is the product of two (2) full days of mediation sessions in San Diego
10 with the assistance of the Honorable Howard B. Wiener and provides full compensation for out of
11 pocket expenses and extends warranty coverage for additional years and miles.
12 13. Subsequent to the mediation, the parties spent a significant amount of time formalizing
13 the Settlement Agreement, including drafting and finalizing the notice to the class and claim form.
14 14. The Settlement delivers excellent benefits to the Class. In addition to providing an
15 extended warranty, the Settlement provides benefits for both Class Members who have already paid for
16 the necessary repairs to address complaints of excessive oil consumption as well as Class Members who
17 have not yet done so. The warranty extension adds significant coverage, extending the warranty period
18 from 5 years/50,000 miles (whichever occurs first), to 8 years/125,000 miles (whichever occurs first).
19 15. My firm and I engaged in extensive investigation and discovery, including pre-litigation
20 investigation, interviewing numerous prospective class members to fully assess the merits of Plaintiffs’
21 claims, AMH’s response to oil consumption complaints in Class Vehicles, reviewing online complaints,
22 expert discovery, researching the suitability of the class representatives, assessing AMH’s defenses,
23 researching and analyzing discovery produced by AHM, and deposing AHM’s PMK on issues relating
24 to Plaintiff’s claims. These combined efforts enabled us to test our own assumptions regarding the
25 merits of the case.
26 16. Based on this discovery and independent investigation and evaluation, I am of the
27 opinion that the Settlement is fair, reasonable, and adequate, and is in the best interests of the Settlement
28 Class in light of all known facts and circumstances, including the risk of significant delay and
4 4835-9649-2475.1 DECLARATION OF HOVANES MARGARIAN IN SUPPORT OF PLAINTIFFS’ MOTION FOR FINAL APPROVAL OF CLASS ACTION SETTLEMENT
1 uncertainty associated with litigation of this type, as well as the various defenses asserted by AHM.
2 Based on thorough investigation regarding the merits and scope of the class claims, the parties are now
3 well-informed about the legal and factual issues in the case, enabling us to reach an adequate, fair and
4 reasonable settlement.
5 17. Based on our investigation and evaluation in this case, as well as my experience litigating
6 automotive class action matters, I believe that this settlement and the benefits it provides to the
7 prospective class members are fair and reasonable. My opinion factors into consideration the benefits
8 received in other similar class actions, as well as a thorough analysis of the material facts and law in this
9 case, the documents produced in discovery and the Defendant’s deposition testimony. The Honorable
10 Howard B. Wiener, who assisted with the negotiations, weighted heavily in favor of the settlement terms
11 as negotiated.
12 Effectuation of Settlement Agreement
13 18. Following this Court’s order granting preliminary approval and dissemination of the
14 Class Notice, my office received over eight hundred calls from Class Members inquiring as to how they
15 can participate in the class action settlement. The Class Members also had questions as to the scope of
16 benefits. I answered Class Members’ questions, including following up when needed, and I continue to
17 monitor the response of Class Members to the Settlement. I expect to field many more calls from Class
18 Members in the ensuing months. I researched the laws in different states regarding the obligations of
19 automobile repair businesses to maintain purchase and repair records as to better advise Class Members
20 who have lost or misplaced their repair documents.
21 19. I called over two hundred twenty Acura dealerships – across all fifty states as well as
22 Puerto Rico – to confirm that Defendants have advised them of the Class Action Settlement and that
23 they are aware of their obligations under that Settlement. I personally spoke to either the Service
24 Manager or the Service Advisor at numerous Service Centers to ensure that the dealerships understand
25 the terms and conditions of the Settlement. In the course of these conversations, I also learned that many
26 of Acura dealerships contacted had performed piston repairs under the Settlement terms. Based on this
27 rigorous monitoring effort, I am satisfied that Defendants are complying with their duty to properly
28 advise Acura dealerships of their obligations to provide piston repairs to Class Members pursuant to the
5 4835-9649-2475.1 DECLARATION OF HOVANES MARGARIAN IN SUPPORT OF PLAINTIFFS’ MOTION FOR FINAL APPROVAL OF CLASS ACTION SETTLEMENT
1 terms of the Settlement.
2 Qualifications and Firm Background
3 20. The Margarian Law Firm (“Firm”) was founded in 2006 and prosecutes class actions and
4 individual claims on behalf of consumers and members of the general public. Over the course of over
5 thirteen (13) years the Firm’s attorneys have successfully handled over two thousand (2,000) cases
6 involving automotive defects and related consumer rights violations. I presently have over one hundred
7 fifty (150) pending such matters. My Firm almost exclusively handles consumer rights violations
8 involving breaches of written and implied warranties pursuant to the Magnuson-Moss Warranty Act and
9 the Song-Beverly Consumer Warranty Act, negligent manufacture, fraud and deceit, and violations of
10 the Consumer Legal Remedies Act (CLRA) and Business & Professions Code §§ 17200 and 17500.
11 21. My Firm has handled consumer rights litigation against practically all major automobile
12 manufacturers, most major automobile financing and/or leasing lenders, and hundreds of automobile
13 retailing/distributing dealerships.
14 22. As a natural biproduct of the Firm’s individual claims litigation practice, the Firm’s
15 attorneys have come across various class actions, primarily involving automobile defects, and have
16 successfully litigated those cases. Over the course of my career, I have been (still am for some) co-class
17 counsel on the following class action cases:
18 a. Ali Asghari, et al. v. Volkswagen Group of America, Inc., et al., Case No. 2:13-cv-
19 02529- MMM-VBK (C.D. Cal.) (We certified a class of approximately 126,000
20 vehicle owners whose Audi vehicles exhibited an engine oil overconsumption
21 defect much similar to the case at issue.)
22 a. Lilith Chakhalyan v. City of Los Angeles et al., Case No. BC443367 (We certified
23 a class of approximately 8,000 City of Los Angeles residents who had been
24 overcharged on their Department of Water & Power waste disposal fees. The
25 resulting settlement provided an approximate $8,000,000 refund to the class.)
26 b. Jackie Fitzhenry-Russell et al. v. Keurig Dr Pepper Inc., et al., Case No. 5:17-cv-
27 00564-NC (N.D. Cal.) (The class was settled, granting $11,200,000 in refunds to
28 a nationwide class.)
6 4835-9649-2475.1 DECLARATION OF HOVANES MARGARIAN IN SUPPORT OF PLAINTIFFS’ MOTION FOR FINAL APPROVAL OF CLASS ACTION SETTLEMENT
1 a. Dean Rollolazo, et al. v BMW of North America, LLC at al., Case No. 8:16-cv-
2 00966-TJH-SS (This is a class action regarding the defective range extender
3 mechanism on BMW i3RX vehicles. The case is up for class certification.)
4 23. I have the experience necessary to litigate such matters and have litigated the present
5 matter to the point of obtaining a Settlement Agreement which parallels the best results obtained in
6 similar cases.
7 24. I completed my Juris Doctor degree at the University of Southern California Gould
8 School of Law in 2006 and immediately founded The Margarian Law Firm.
9 25. I am a member of the Consumer Attorneys Association of Los Angeles (CAALA).
10 26. For the reasons stated herein and in the accompanying Plaintiffs’ Motion for Final
11 Approval, I believe that the proposed settlement reached in this action is fair, reasonable and adequate,
12 and, indeed, is an excellent settlement for the putative class members.
13 Attorney’s Fees, Costs and Expenses; Service Award for Class Representatives
14 27. At the time of filing the motion for attorney’s fees, the estimated cost of repairs and
15 reimbursement claims in this matter pursuant to the Settlement would amount to approximately
16 $25,000,000. As of now, the benefits conferred upon the Class Members have a confirmed value of
17 $68.7 million and based on AHM’s forecasts for future claims, the full value of the settlement benefits
18 may eventually top $80.4 million.
19 28. The Settlement Agreement calls for payment of a Service Award of five thousand dollars
20 ($5,000) combined to the Class Representatives. This sum is now even more reasonable in light of the
21 large benefit amount conferred upon the Class Members.
22 29. The Settlement Agreement calls for payment of six hundred forty four thousand seven
23 hundred fifty dollars ($644,750.00) in attorneys’ fees, costs and expenses. Deducting costs of twenty
24 eight thousand two hundred thirty three dollars and seventy cents ($28,237.70), the effective attorneys’
25 fee request is for six hundred sixteen thousand five hundred twelve dollars and thirty cents
26 ($616,512.30). This attorneys’ fee request constitutes zero point nine percent (0.9%) of the Class benefit
27 to date and zero point seventy seven percent (0.77%) of the total anticipated Class recovery.
28 30. Compared to the amount of benefit conferred upon the Class, the Class Representatives’
7 4835-9649-2475.1 DECLARATION OF HOVANES MARGARIAN IN SUPPORT OF PLAINTIFFS’ MOTION FOR FINAL APPROVAL OF CLASS ACTION SETTLEMENT
1 THE MARGARIAN LAW FIRM HOVANES MARGARIAN (SBN: 246359) 2 SHUSHANIK MARGARIAN (SBN: 318617) 3 801 N. Brand Blvd., Suite 210
4 Glendale, CA 91203 Telephone: (818) 553-1000 5 Facsimile: (818) 553-1005
6 [email protected] [email protected] 7
8 Attorneys for Plaintiffs, ARMEN G. KOJIKIAN 9 TIME TRADERS, INC. 10 SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA 11 12 FOR THE COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES, CENTRAL DISTRICT
13 ARMEN G. KOJIKIAN, as an ) Case No.: BC606392 14 individual, on behalf of himself, all ) others similarly situated, and the general) Class Action 15 public; TIME TRADERS, INC., a ) 16 California corporation, on behalf of ) Hon. Daniel J. Buckley itself, all others similarly situated, and ) 17 the general public ) DECLARATION ARMEN G. KOJIKIAN 18 ) IN SUPPORT OF PLAINTIFFS’ Plaintiffs, ) MOTION FOR FINAL APPROVAL OF 19 ) CLASS ACTION SETTLEMENT 20 vs. ) ) Date: May 28, 2020 21 AMERICAN HONDA MOTOR CO., ) Time: 10:30 a.m. 22 INC., a California corporation; and ) Place: Department 1 DOES 1 through 100, inclusive, ) 23 ) 24 Defendan ) Complaint Filed: January 8, 2016 ) Trial Date: None set 25 ) 26 ) ) 27 ) 28 )
4830-2855-7499.1 DECLARATION OF ARMEN G. KOJIKIAN IN SUPPORT OF PLAINTIFFS’ MOTION FOR FINAL APPROVAL OF CLASS ACTION SETTLEMENT
1 I, ARMEN G. KOJIKIAN, declare as follows: 2 1. I am an individual over the age of 18. I am a Class Representative for the 3 Plaintiffs in the above-referenced action. I have personal knowledge of the facts set forth 4 below and if called to testify, I could and would do so competently. 5 2. This declaration is submitted in support of Plaintiffs’ Motion for Attorneys’ 6 Fees, Costs and Expenses, and Service Award for Class Representatives. 7 3. I am the sole owner of Time Traders, Inc., the corporate co-plaintiff in this 8 case. My company and I are the co-purchasers of AHM’s Class Vehicle. After I began 9 experiencing problems with AHM’s engines that resulted in excessive oil consumption, I 10 contacted my AHM dealership but was unable to obtain assistance. Ultimately, I decided 11 to file a class action lawsuit, with my company as a co-Plaintiff. 12 4. I have assisted Class Counsel in the prosecution of the class action. I 13 consulted with Class Counsel, providing my experience and relevant documents. 14 5. I also reviewed the settlement terms at every stage of the negotiations, 15 individually conferring with my attorney Hovanes Margarian, before agreeing to the 16 terms. 17 6. Given the fact that my primary objective as a Class Vehicle owner was to 18 have my vehicle’s excessive oil consumption issues repaired and to provide a similar 19 remedy for other Class Vehicle owners in the same situation, I find that the extended 20 warranty terms abundantly accomplish that objective. 21 7. The warranty gap coverage was also fair, giving Class Members a window 22 of time to have their vehicles repaired even if outside the extended warranty period, and 23 also reasonably limiting such repair rights from being extended over several years, 24 awaiting Court approval. 25 8. The claim reimbursement process is also designed both seamlessly and 26 reasonably, allowing those with out of pocket expenses to seek reimbursement. 27 9. While settlement terms can always include more, the terms within the 28 Settlement Agreement are in my opinion substantial, fair and adequate for the class
4830-2855-7499.1 DECLARATION OF ARMEN G. KOJIKIAN IN SUPPORT OF PLAINTIFFS’ 2 MOTION FOR FINAL APPROVAL OF CLASS ACTION SETTLEMENT
EXHIBIT A AUTOMOBILE DIVISION American Honda Motor Co., Inc. 1919 Torrance Blvd. – P.O. Box 2215 Torrance, CA 90509-9870
February 2019
Warranty Extension: Engine Oil Consumption Exceeds Client Expectations
VIN:
What should you do? If you are experiencing any excessive engine oil consumption, contact any authorized Acura dealer for an appointment to have your vehicle inspected. Acura will do an engine oil consumption test. If the dealer determines there is excessive oil consumption, the dealer will repair your vehicle free of charge. Please plan to leave your vehicle at the dealer for at least half a day to allow them flexibility in scheduling.
Check Your Vehicle for Open Recalls To check your vehicle’s eligibility for potential recalls, please access the Acura Recall Lookup tool at www.myAcura.com and enter your Vehicle Identification Number (VIN).
Lessor Information Please forward a copy of this notice to the lessee.
What to do if you feel this notice is in error Our records show that you are the current owner or lessee of a 2010–13 MDX, 2011–12 RL, 2009–14 TL, 2010–13 ZDX involved in this Warranty Extension. If this is not the case, or the name/address information is not correct, please fill out and return the enclosed, postage-paid Information Change Card. We will then update our records.
If you have questions If you have any questions about this notice, or need assistance with locating an Acura dealer, please call American Honda’s Customer Support & Campaign Center at 1-888-234-2138. U.S. clients can also locate a dealer online at www.myAcura.com. Clients in U.S. territories, please contact your local distributor/dealer. We apologize for any inconvenience this warranty extension may cause you. Sincerely,
American Honda Motor Co., Inc. Acura Automobile Division
FOR DEALER USE ONLY: REFERENCE SVC BULLETIN #19-006 6C5 AUTOMOBILE DIVISION American Honda Motor Co., Inc. 1919 Torrance Blvd. – P.O. Box 2215 Torrance, CA 90509-9870
Febrero del 2019
Extensión de garantía: El consumo de aceite del motor excede las expectativas del cliente
VIN:
¿Qué debe hacer? Si usted está experimentando consumo excesivo de aceite del motor, comuníquese con cualquier concesionario Acura autorizado para coordinar una cita para la inspección de su vehículo. Acura realizará una prueba de consumo de aceite del motor. Si el concesionario determina que existe consumo de aceite excesivo, el concesionario reparará su vehículo sin costo alguno. Por favor haga planes para dejar su vehículo en el concesionario por lo menos medio día, para permitir flexibilidad en la programación.
Verifique si su vehículo tiene una campaña de seguridad pendiente Para verificar la elegibilidad de su vehículo por campañas de seguridad potenciales, por favor acceda la herramienta de búsqueda “Acura Recall Lookup” en www.myAcura.com e ingrese su número de identificación del vehículo (VIN).
Información para el arrendador Por favor envié una copia de esta notificación al arrendatario.
Qué debe hacer si considera que esta notificación es errónea Nuestros registros indican que usted es propietario o arrendatario de un vehículo MDX 2010–2013, RL 2011–2012, TL 2009–2014, ZDX 2010–2013, el cual forma parte de esta extensión de garantía. Si no es el caso, o si la información de nombre/dirección no está correcta, por favor llene y devuelva la Tarjeta de Cambio de Información anexa con el porte pagado. Con esto actualizaremos nuestros registros.
Si tiene preguntas Si tiene preguntas acerca de esta notificación o si necesita asistencia para ponerse en contacto con un concesionario Acura, por favor comuníquese con el Centro de Apoyo al Cliente y Campañas de American Honda al 1-888-234-2138. Los clientes en Estados Unidos pueden ubicar un concesionario en línea en www.myAcura.com. Los clientes en territorios de Estados Unidos, por favor comuníquese con su concesionario/distribuidor local. Le pedimos disculpas por cualquier inconveniente que esta extensión de garantía pudiera causarle. Atentamente,
American Honda Motor Co., Inc. División Automotriz de Acura
PARA USO DEL CONCESIONARIO SOLAMENTE: REFERENCIA BOLETÍN DE SERVICIO #19-006 6C5 EXHIBIT B Service Bulletin 19-006
February 21, 2019 Version 2
Warranty Extension: Engine Oil Consumption Exceeds Client Expectations Supersedes 19-006, dated January 16, 2019, to revise the information highlighted in yellow
AFFECTED VEHICLES
Year Model Trim VIN Range
2010-13 MDX ALL Check the iN VIN status for eligibility
2011-12 RL ALL Check the iN VIN status for eligibility
2009-14 TL SH-AWD Check the iN VIN status for eligibility
2010-13 ZDX ALL Check the iN VIN status for eligibility
REVISION SUMMARY Under REQUIRED MATERIALS, Hondabond HT was added.
CLIENT NOTIFICATION Owners of affected vehicles will be sent a notification of this campaign. Warranty claims submitted within 6 months of the client notification will be covered regardless of mileage or vehicle age. Do an iN VIN status inquiry to make sure the vehicle is shown as eligible.
BACKGROUND The oil control rings may become clogged with carbon deposits. These deposits restrict the ring's ability to scrape and return oil from the cylinder wall to the crankcase, which can result in excessive engine oil consumption that may exceed client expectations. To increase client confidence, American Honda is extending the engine warranty related to oil consumption to 8 years from the original date of purchase or 125,000 miles, whichever comes first. This warranty extension does not apply to any vehicle that has ever been declared a total loss or sold for salvage by a financial institution or insurer, or has a branded or similar title under any states law. To check for vehicle eligibility, you must do a VIN status inquiry.
CORRECTIVE ACTION If the client complains of oil consumption, do the oil consumption test. If the test shows excessive oil consumption, contact your DPSM for approval, then disassemble and inspect the engine. In most cases, you will need to replace the pistons, piston pins, and rings.
CLIENT INFORMATION:The information in this bulletin is intended for use only by skilled technicians who have the proper tools, equipment, and training to correctly and safely maintain your vehicle. These procedures should not be attempted by “do-it-yourselfers,” and you should not assume this bulletin applies to your vehicle, or that your vehicle has the condition described. To determine whether this information applies, contact an authorized Acura automobile dealer.
© 2019 American Honda Motor Co., Inc. — All Rights Reserved Page 1 of 22 PARTS INFORMATION ALL MODELS
Part Name Part Number Quantity
Oil Filter 15400-PLM-A01 1
EGR Pipe Gasket A 18716-R70-A01 1
EGR Pipe Gasket B 18719-R70-A01 1
Head Cover Gasket Set 12030-R70-A00 1
Head Cover Gasket Set RR 12050-R70-A00 1
Cylinder Head Gasket 12251-RKG-004 2
Exhaust Chamber Gasket 18115-R70-A01 2
Exhaust Pipe Gasket 18212-SA7-003 2
Front Injector Base Gasket 17055-RYE-A01 1
Front Water Passage Gasket 19411-P8A-A03 1
Intake Manifold Gasket 17105-RCJ-A01 1
Intake Manifold Cover Gasket (upper) 17146-R70-A01 1
Pre Chamber Gasket 18393-SDB-A00 1
Injector Base Gasket 17065-RYE-A01 1
Water Passage Gasket 19412-P8A-A02 1
Oil Seal (41 mm X 56 mm X 7 mm) 91212-5MR-A01 1
O-Ring 15221-RYE-A01 1
O-Ring (31.2 X 4.1) 91314-PH7-003 2
O-Ring (7.47 X 3.6) 91301-PLC-000 2
Bore Plate Seal 17112-RKB-003 1
Self-Lock Nut (8 mm) 90212-RCA-A01 8
Self-Lock Nut (10 mm) 90212-SA5-003 12
Piston Set 13010-RKG-305 6
Piston Ring Set 13011-RKG-305 6
PARTS INFORMATION ADDITIONAL (MDX)
Part Name Part Number Quantity
Pre Chamber Gasket 18393-SJA-A01 1
Page 2 of 22 PARTS INFORMATION ADDITIONAL (RL)
Part Name Part Number Quantity
Flange Nut (10 mm) 90310-TK5-A00 4
Hex Cap Nut (10 mm) 90310-SJA-000 4
PARTS INFORMATION ADDITIONAL (TL)
Part Name Part Number Quantity
Hex Cap Nut (10 mm) 90310-SJA-000 1
PARTS INFORMATION ADDITIONAL (ZDX)
Part Name Part Number Quantity
Pre Chamber Gasket 18393-SJA-A01 1
REQUIRED MATERIALS
Part Name Part Number Quantity
Acura Long-Life Antifreeze/Coolant Type 2 OL999-9011 3
Acura Genuine Motor Oil 5W-20 08798-9033 6
Hondabond HT (1 tube repairs 4 vehicles) 08718-0004 1
TOOL INFORMATION
Part Name Part Number Quantity
Tapered Piston Ring Compressor (90mm) ARP 901-9000 1 (commercially available or equivalent)
Ridge Reamer (if needed) WR30A (commercially 1 available or equivalent)
Page 3 of 22 WARRANTY CLAIM INFORMATION
Operation Description Flat Rate Defect Symptom Template Failed Part Number Number Time Code Code ID
1111EH 2010-13 MDX: Do the 13.1 hrs B19006A 10002-RYE-A10 engine oil consumption test, and replace the pistons, pins, and rings.
1111EH 2009-14 TL: Do the 11.0 hrs B19006B 10002-RK2-A03 engine oil consumption test, and replace the pistons, pins, and rings. 6C500 Y3800 1111EH 2011-12 RL: Do the 10.4 hrs B19006C 10002-RKG-A06 engine oil consumption test, and replace the pistons, pins, and rings.
1111EH 2010-13 ZDX: Do the 11.0 hrs B19006D 10002-RP6-A01 engine oil consumption test, and replace the pistons, pins, and rings.
Skill Level: Repair Technician
DIAGNOSIS 1. Do an engine oil consumption test. Refer to job aid Engine Oil Consumption Test. 2. Review the results of the engine oil consumption test. • If the engine is consuming an unusually high amount of oil, contact your DPSM for approval, then go to REPAIR PROCEDURE. • If the engine is consuming a normal amount of engine oil, the vehicle is OK. Have the service consultant explain to the client that the vehicle is OK and the consumption of oil is within a normal range.
NOTE Have the service consultant remind the client to check the engine oil level every time the fuel tank is filled. Modern engines require less frequent oil changes, which may impact the amount of oil used between oil changes.
REPAIR PROCEDURE NOTE The following service information procedures have been used in full or in part within this service bulletin. For more detail on these procedures and torque specifications for some components, refer to the service information. • Engine Oil Replacement • Battery Terminal Disconnection and Reconnection • Fuel Pressure Relieving • Coolant Replacement • Drive Belt Removal/Installation • Hydraulic Power Steering Fluid Check/Replacement
Page 4 of 22 • Air Cleaner Removal/Installation • Fuel Line/Quick-Connect Fitting Removal • Front Bulkhead Cover Replacement • Cylinder Head Cover Removal • Intake Manifold Removal and Installation • Warm Up TWC Removal/Installation • Cylinder Head Removal and Installation • Cam Chain Removal and Installation • Valve Adjustment • Propeller Shaft Removal • Alternator Removal and Installation • Ignition coil and Spark Plug Removal and Installation • Exhaust Pipe and Muffler Replacement • Strut Brace Removal/Installation 1. Relieve the fuel pressure.
NOTES
• Use fender covers to avoid damaging painted surfaces. • To avoid damaging any wires and terminals, unplug the circuit connectors carefully while holding the connector portion. • Connect the i-HDS to the DLC, and monitor the ECT SENSOR 1. To avoid damaging the cylinder head, wait until the engine coolant temperature drops below 100°F (38°C) before loosening the cylinder head bolts. • Mark all wiring and hoses to avoid misconnection. Also, be sure that they do not contact any other wiring or hoses or interfere with any other parts. 2. Wait until the engine is cool, then carefully remove the radiator cap. 3. Loosen the drain plug on the radiator, and drain the engine coolant. 4. Plug the power steering hoses at the reservoir, and move them out of the way. 5. Do the battery removal procedure.
Page 5 of 22 6. Remove the engine cover. (TL has multiple covers.)
7. Disconnect the A/C suction line bracket at the right strut tower to allow for more clearance. 8. Remove the alternator. 9. Remove the intake manifold. 10. Remove the six ignition coils. 11. Remove the timing belt. 12. Disconnect the following engine wire harness connectors, and remove the wire harness clamps from the cylinder head: • Six injector connectors • Knock sensor connector • ECT sensor 1 connector • Engine mount control solenoid valve connector • EGR valve connector • CMP sensor connector • Rocker arm oil control solenoid connector • Rocker arm oil pressure switch connector • Two A/F sensor connectors • Two secondary HO2S connectors
Page 6 of 22 13. Remove the front warm up TWC and the rear warm up TWC. 14. Remove the quick-connect fitting cover, then disconnect the fuel feed hose.
Page 7 of 22 15. Remove the connector bracket from the front cylinder head.
Page 8 of 22 16. Remove the mount control solenoid valve bracket from the rear cylinder head.
17. Remove the injector bases. 18. Remove the water passage. 19. Remove the camshaft pulleys and the back covers. CYLINDER HEAD REMOVAL 1. Remove the cylinder head covers. 2. Remove the cylinder head bolts. To prevent warpage, loosen the bolts in sequence 1/3 turn at a time; repeat the sequence until all the bolts are loosened.
3. Remove the cylinder heads, and visually inspect the head of the valves on the combustion side of the cylinder head for damage.
Page 9 of 22 CYLINDER BORE INSPECTION
NOTES IMPORTANT – When inspecting cylinder bores on engines related to this service bulletin, keep in mind that blocks were produced with aluminum cylinder sleeves. These sleeves will look characteristically different from most other engines that you have done service on. Additionally, just because a defect can be felt by a fingernail or pencil, does not necessarily require the block to be changed. Inspect the cylinder for any obvious concerns. Listed below are examples of concerns that may be found during your inspection, which have been proven by factory testing to not create a functional issue. • During piston assembly at the factory, there may have been a vertical scratch created. This scratch can run the entire length of the cylinder bore and can be felt by a fingernail. Potentially, each bore could be effected; however, the cylinder block is OK. Go to OIL PAN REMOVAL. • In some cases, there is a discoloration of the cylinder bore. Examples are shown below. The cylinder block is OK. Go to OIL PAN REMOVAL. • Additionally, blocks that have an area of light bore scuffing, also shown below, have been confirmed by testing that the cylinder block is OK. Go to OIL PAN REMOVAL. • If the concern that you observe is different from these examples, contact your DPSM for evaluation.
Page 10 of 22 ENGINE OIL PAN REMOVAL 1. Drain the engine oil. 2. Disconnect the secondary HO2S. 3. Remove the under-floor TWC.
NOTE Do not remove the front and rear secondary HO2S sensor. 4. Remove the rear warm up TWC bracket.
5. Disconnect the CKP sensor connector. 6. Remove the torque converter cover.
Page 11 of 22 7. Remove the transmission assembly mounting bolts attached to the oil pan.
8. Remove the bolts securing the oil pan.
Page 12 of 22 9. Using a flat blade screwdriver, separate the oil pan from the engine block as shown.
10. Remove the oil pan.
Page 13 of 22 REMOVAL OF PISTONS AND RODS 1. Remove the engine oil strainer and baffle plate.
Page 14 of 22 2. If you can feel a ridge of metal or hard carbon around the top of each cylinder, remove it with a ridge reamer.
3. Remove the connecting rod caps after setting the connecting rod journal at bottom dead center (BDC) for each cylinder. Remove the piston /connecting rod assembly by pushing on the connecting rod.
NOTES
• Before removing the rod caps, use a grease pencil or suitable marking pen to mark each cap and its corresponding connecting rod with the cylinder number it came from. This ensures you are putting the same rod and cap back together with the right orientation. • Take care not to damage the oil jets, the connecting rod journal, or the cylinder with the connecting rod.
• Do not confuse the existing markings on the side of the connecting rod and rod cap with a cylinder number. They’re just manufacturing marks referring to the size of the big end of the rod.
Page 15 of 22 • When torqueing the rod cap bolts, refer to the service information for details. If you would like to see a video on this subject, we have added one to Tech2Tech®. Look for “Tips When Working With Fracture Rods.” 4. Remove the snap rings from both sides of each piston. Start at the cut-out in the piston pin bore. Remove the snap rings carefully so they do not go flying or get lost. Wear eye protection.
5. Separately heat each piston and connecting rod assembly to about 158 °F (70 °C), then remove the piston pin.
Page 16 of 22 INSTALLATION OF PISTONS, RODS, AND RINGS 1. Install a piston pin snap ring only on one side of the new piston.
2. Coat the new piston pin bore in the piston, the bore in the connecting rod, and the piston pin with new engine oil. 3. Heat the new piston to about 158°F (70°C).
Page 17 of 22 4. Assemble the new piston and the connecting rod with the embossed marks on the same side, as shown below. Install the new piston pin.
NOTE Apply new engine oil to the new piston pin. 5. Install the remaining snap rings. 6. Assemble the other new pistons the same way. 7. Install the rings as shown. The top ring has a 1E mark and the second ring has a 2E mark. The manufacturing marks must be facing upward.
8. Rotate the rings in their grooves to make sure they do not bind.
Page 18 of 22 9. Position the ring end gaps as shown.
10. Position the piston/connecting rod assembly with the arrow facing the timing belt side of the engine block.
Page 19 of 22 11. Set the piston in the ring compressor, and position it in the cylinder.
12. Set the ring compressor on the piston bore, then push the piston in with your hands.
13. Stop after the ring compressor pops free, and check the connecting rod-to-rod journal alignment before pushing the piston into place. 14. Before installing the rod bolts, measure the diameter of each connecting rod bolt at point A and point B. 15. Calculate the difference in diameter between point A and point B.
Page 20 of 22 Point A-Point B = Difference in Diameter. Difference in Diameter Specification: 0-0.1 mm (0-0.004 in) 16. If the difference in diameter is out of tolerance, replace the connecting rod bolt. 17. Install the connecting rod bearing, then line up the mark on the connecting rod and the rod cap.
18. Apply new engine oil to the bolt threads and flanges. Torque the bolts to 20 N·m (14 lb·ft). 19. Tighten the connecting rod bolt an additional 90°.
NOTE Remove the connecting rod bolt if you tightened it beyond the specified angle, and inspect the connecting rod bolt. Do not loosen it back to the specified angle.
Page 21 of 22 20. Install the engine oil strainer and baffle plate.
21. Install all removed parts according to the service information. END
Page 22 of 22
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8 SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA
9 FOR THE COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES, CENTRAL DISTRICT
10 ARMEN G. KOJIKIAN, as an individual, on ) Case No.: BC606392 behalf of himself, all others similarly situated, ) 11 and the general public; TIME TRADERS, ) Class Action INC., a California corporation, on behalf of ) 12 ) itself, all others similarly situated, and the ) Hon. Daniel J. Buckley 13 general public ) ) [PROPOSED] ORDER GRANTING FINAL 14 Plaintiffs, ) APPROVAL OF CLASS ACTION ) SETTLEMENT 15 vs. ) ) 16 ) AMERICAN HONDA MOTOR CO., INC., a ) 17 California corporation; and DOES 1 through ) 100, inclusive, ) 18 ) Defendants. ) 19 ) ) 20 ) ) 21 ) ) 22 ) ) 23 )
24
25 26
27
28
4832-2156-1531.1 [PROPOSED] ORDER GRANTING FINAL APPROVAL OF CLASS ACTION SETTLEMENT
1 On July 14, 2020 at 11:00 a.m., in Department 1, of the above-captioned Court, located at 312
2 North Sprint Street, Los Angeles, California 90012, Plaintiffs’ Motion for Final Approval of Class Action
3 Settlement, and Plaintiffs’ Motion for Attorneys’ Fees, Expenses and Costs, and Service Award for Class
4 Representatives (“Motions”) came on for hearing before the Honorable Daniel J. Buckley. The above
5 captioned Action is a class action lawsuit brought by Plaintiffs Armen G. Kojikian, as an individual, on
6 behalf of himself and all others similarly situated, and Time Traders, Inc., a California corporation, on
7 behalf of itself, and all others similarly situated, (hereinafter “Plaintiffs”) against Defendant American
8 Honda Motor Co., Inc. (“Defendant” or “AHM”) (collectively the “Parties”). Plaintiffs allege that, inter
9 alia, the Class Vehicles have a defect that manifests in excessive oil consumption outside the applicable
10 warranty period, forcing consumers to pay out of pocket to pay for repairs necessary to remedy this
11 condition. On this basis, Plaintiffs assert claims for (1) breach of express warranty, (2) breach of implied
12 warranty, (3) breach of warranty (Song-Beverly Consumer Warranty Act), Civil Code § 1790 et seq.
13 (“Song-Beverly”), (4) breach of warranty (Magnuson-Moss Warranty Act), 15 U.S.C. § 2301 et seq.
14 (“Mag-Moss”), (5) violation of the California Consumers Legal Remedies Act, Civil Code § 1750 et seq.
15 (“CLRA”), (6) violation of California Business & Professions Code § 17200 et seq. (“UCL”), and (7)
16 nuisance. Defendant denies any and all alleged wrongdoing and denies any liability to the Plaintiffs or to
17 members of the putative class.
18 The Parties have entered into a proposed class action settlement agreement and release after
19 years of litigation and following two full day mediation sessions with a respected and experienced 20 mediator, Hon. Howard Weiner. On October 16, 2019, this Court entered an Order Granting 21 Preliminary Approval of Settlement and certified of the following provisional Settlement Class: 22 All residents of the United States, Puerto Rico, and all U.S. territories, who 23 currently own or lease, or previously owned or leased, a Class Vehicle, which is defined 24
25 as 2010-2013 Acura MDX, 2011-2012 Acura RL, 2009-2014 Acura TL, and 2010-2013
26 Acura ZDX vehicles with J37 engines, made for sale and/or lease in the United States,
27 Puerto Rico, or the U.S. territories and that were sold or leased to a Class Member who 28
2 4832-2156-1531.1 [PROPOSED] ORDER GRANTING FINAL APPROVAL OF CLASS ACTION SETLEMENT
1 registered and operated the vehicle in the United States, Puerto Rico, or the U.S.
2 Territories. 3 Excluded from the Class are: (1) AHM, its related entities, parent companies, subsidiaries and 4 affiliates, and their respective officers, directors, and employees; (2) insurers of the Class Vehicles; (3) 5 all persons and/or entities claiming to be subrogated to the rights of Class Members; (4) issuers or 6 providers of extended vehicle warranties or extended service contracts; (5) individuals and/or entities 7
8 who validly and timely opt-out of the Settlement; (6) individuals or businesses that have purchased
9 Class Vehicles previously deemed a total loss (i.e. salvage) (subject to verification through Carfax or
10 other means); (7) current and former owners of a Class Vehicle who previously have released their 11 claims against AHM with respect to the issues raised in the Litigation; (8) United States, Puerto Rico, 12 and U.S. territory residents who have purchased Class Vehicles in the United States but have since 13 transported the vehicle outside the United States for permanent use abroad; and (9) any judge to whom 14
15 this matter is assigned, and his or her immediate family (spouse, domestic partner, or children).
16 The Court’s Preliminary Approval Order further directed the Parties to provide Notice to the
17 Class, which informed absent class members of: (a) the proposed Settlement, and the Settlement’s key
18 terms; (b) the date, time and location of the Final Approval Hearing; (c) the right of any Class Member 19 to object to the proposed Settlement, and an explanation of the procedures to exercise that right; (d) the 20 right of any Class Member to exclude themselves from the proposed Settlement, and an explanation of 21 the procedures to exercise that right; and (e) an explanation of the procedures for class members to 22
23 participate in the proposed settlement.
24 The Court, upon Notice having been given as required in the Preliminary Approval Order, and
25 having reviewed and considered the Motions, the Amended Class Action Settlement Agreement and 26 Release ( “Settlement” or “Settlement Agreement”), Claim Form, Class Notice, all accompanying 27 declarations and exhibits to the Motions, thereto, and all of the legal authorities and documents 28
3 4832-2156-1531.1 [PROPOSED] ORDER GRANTING FINAL APPROVAL OF CLASS ACTION SETLEMENT
1 submitted in support of the Motions, and in recognition of the Court’s duty to make a final
2 determination as to the good faith, fairness, adequacy, and reasonable of the settlement, hereby 3 ORDERS that the Motions are Granted, subject to the following findings and orders: 4 1. The Court has jurisdiction over the subject matter of the Action and over all Parties to 5 the Action, including all members of the Settlement Class. 6 2. The Settlement Agreement and the settlement embodied therein, is approved as fair, 7
8 adequate and reasonable.
9 3. The Court finds that the certification of the Settlement Class, as defined in the Court’s
10 Preliminary Approval Order, is hereby confirmed for purposes of the settlement of this 11 Action. 12 4. The Court hereby approves the form and manner of disseminating the settlement Notice 13 to the Class Members and that the Notice provided to the Settlement Class conforms with 14
15 the requirements of California Code of Civil Procedure section 382, California Civil
16 Code section 1781, California Rules of Court 3.766 and 3.769, the California and United
17 States Constitutions, and any other applicable law, and constitutes the best notice
18 practicable under the circumstances, by providing individual notice to all Class Members 19 who could be identified through reasonable effort, and by providing due and adequate 20 notice of the proceedings and of the matters set forth therein to the other Class Members. 21 The notice fully satisfied the requirements of due process. The Court is satisfied that the 22
23 Parties have made their best efforts, in light of the available resources, to provide Notice
24 to the putative class members, by way of direct notice at the Class Members’ last known
25 and most up to the date contact addresses and by way of publication through the 26 Settlement Website. 27
28
4 4832-2156-1531.1 [PROPOSED] ORDER GRANTING FINAL APPROVAL OF CLASS ACTION SETLEMENT
1 5. The Court finds the settlement was entered into in good faith, that the settlement is fair,
2 reasonable and adequate, that the Settlement confers actual, valuable, and significant 3 benefits to Class Members, and that the settlement satisfies the standards and applicable 4 requirements for final approval of this class action settlement under California law, 5 including the provisions of California Code of Civil Procedure section 382 and California 6 Rules of Court, Rule 3.769. 7
8 6. The Court finds that the Class Representatives and Class Counsel have fairly and
9 adequately represented the interests of the Class Members at all times in this Action.
10 7. Upon the Effective Date, the Plaintiff and all members of the Settlement Class, except 11 the excluded individuals referenced in paragraph 9 of this Order (and identified in 12 Exhibit A to this Order), and any of their predecessors, successors, representatives, 13 parent companies, subsidiaries, affiliates, heirs, executors, administrators, attorneys, 14
15 successors, and assignees are hereby enjoined and barred from instituting, filing,
16 commencing, prosecuting maintaining, continuing to prosecute, directly or indirectly, as
17 an individual or collectively, representatively, derivatively, or on behalf of any of them
18 or in any other capacity whatsoever, any action in state or federal court or any other 19 tribunal, forum, or proceeding of any kind against the Released Parties that asserts any 20 of the Released Claims as set forth in the Agreement, [except that the Court concludes 21 that only the Class Representatives expressly waive and relinquish, to the fullest extent 22
23 permitted by law, the provisions, right sand benefits of California Civil Code § 1542].
24 8. Except as otherwise set forth in paragraph 7 herein, American Honda Motor Co., Inc.,
25 and the released parties (as set forth in the Settlement Agreement) are discharged from 26 all further liability for the Released Claims in the Settlement. 27
28
5 4832-2156-1531.1 [PROPOSED] ORDER GRANTING FINAL APPROVAL OF CLASS ACTION SETLEMENT
1 9. Out of 429,191 Class Members, seven have objected to the terms of the Settlement. The
2 Court, having considered the objections and all supporting arguments and papers 3 submitted by objectors Stephen Glass, Joseph Giordano, Amelia Lane, James 4 Copenhaver, Allison Fischer, Ignacio Del Tore, and Darwin G. Yung, and the 5 oppositions to such objections set forth in Plaintiffs’ motion for final approval, 6 concludes each of the objections lack merit and overrules each of them. 7
8 10. Out of 429,191 Class Members, 101 have requested exclusion from the Settlement.
9 Exhibit A to this Order lists the Class Members who have opted out of the Settlement.
10 These individuals are excluded and are not bound by the release in the Settlement or the 11 Judgment in this Action. 12 11. In addition to any recovery that Plaintiffs may receive under the Settlement, and in 13 recognition of the Plaintiffs’ efforts on behalf of the Settlement Class, the Court hereby 14
15 approves the payment of a single combined incentive award to Plaintiff Armen G.
16 Kojikian, in the amount of five thousand dollars ($5,000).
17 12. The Court approves the payment of attorneys’ fees to Class Counsel in the sum six
18 hundred sixteen thousand five hundred twelve dollars and thirty cents ($616,512.30), 19 and the reimbursement of litigation expenses in the sum of twenty eight thousand two 20 hundred thirty three dollars and seventy cents ($28,237.70), totaling six hundred forty 21 four thousand seven hundred fifty dollars ($644,750.00). 22
23 13. Upon completion of administration of the Settlement, the parties shall file a declaration
24 stating forth that claims have been paid and that the terms of the settlement have been
25 completed. 26 14. The clerk shall promptly enter this Order as a final judgment in the docket of this action. 27
28
6 4832-2156-1531.1 [PROPOSED] ORDER GRANTING FINAL APPROVAL OF CLASS ACTION SETLEMENT
1 15. This Court shall retain jurisdiction with respect to all matters related to the administration
2 and consummation of the settlement, and any and all claims, asserted in, arising out of, or 3 related to the subject matter of the lawsuit, including but not limited to all matters related 4 to the settlement and the determination of all controversies relating thereto. 5
6 IT IS SO ORDERED 7 8 Dated: ______, 2020 ______9 Hon. Daniel J. Buckley 10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28 7 4832-2156-1531.1 [PROPOSED] ORDER GRANTING FINAL APPROVAL OF CLASS ACTION SETLEMENT
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8 EXHIBIT A
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
8 4832-2156-1531.1 [PROPOSED] ORDER GRANTING FINAL APPROVAL OF CLASS ACTION SETLEMENT First Name Last Name VIN# 1 Allan Mira 2 Charles Penrod 3 Dean Nolan 4 Elaine Oertley 5 Howard Cole 6 James Tausz 7 James Vance 8 Janessa Grant 9 Javier Flores 10 Nancy Jezisek 11 Peter Pfeiffer 12 Sidney Wagner 13 Wallace Krumm 14 Connie Cavette 15 Connie Mork 16 Jenine Goehrich 17 Joan Thomas 18 Joseph Blice Jr. 19 Kathleen Donnelly 20 Larry Lowery 21 Bary Kahn 22 Daniel McDonald 23 Faye Maness Onley 24 Richard Swanson 25 James Sawyer 26 Gwendolyn Reisman 27 Kristin Askin Hutto 28 Kurt Kefgen 29 Mohammad Al-Sheikhly 30 Phillip Oneal 31 Vincent Lipari 32 Wally Hamilton 33 Barbara Billich 34 Jayne Metzger 35 Tammy McNew 36 Eugene Johnson 37 Robert Tyng 38 Cynthia Haddock-Jones 39 Henry Oheim Jr. 40 Iliana Recalde 41 Leonore Barber 42 Robert Blaser 43 Brad Crotteau 44 Gladys Tanaka 45 Mark Niyazov 46 Mary Kaye Hamilton 47 Angelo Messina 48 Joanne Reichbach 49 Tim Wooldridge 50 Tom Bonetto 51 Maria Perez-Pozo 52 Mark Jurgensen 53 Michael Conrad 54 Brian Wintferling 55 Diana Ellis 56 Mark Hannah 57 Ricki Bulacan 58 Sarah Messenger 59 Kimberly Myers 60 Margaret Hayes 61 Phillip Hisey-Gauthier 62 William Lawler Jr 63 Sheila Zieglowsky 64 Richard and Alan Zeitlin 65 Nancy Tucker 66 Salil Bavdekar 67 Mauricio Vicente 68 Marla Broadnax 69 Kathy Cauley 70 Susanna Hayrapetyan 71 Moises Preciado 72 Jeffrey Tudor 73 Iraj Motabar 74 Alexander Cabrera 75 Lenci Ordaz 76 Laurel Tudor 77 Raymond Broadnax 78 Colin Cauley 79 Douglas Cabrera 80 Arman Danielyan 81 Howard Polonetsky 82 Gilda DeLaTorre 83 Nathan Whitlow 84 Ashley Eischeid 85 Ruoyuan Yin 86 Yinhong Chen 87 Han Yin 88 Israel Bocanegra 89 Rebeca Bocanegra 90 Stephen Seetal 91 Angelle Hill-Seetal 92 Laura Haug 93 Clifford and Carla Royalty 94 Vicki Behm 95 Kathleen Ullom 96 Jim Wright 97 Daniel Karolyi 98 Troy Waddington 99 Windy Dobbins 100 Luis Cesar Sangueado Chavez 101 Tara Newman
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8 SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA
9 FOR THE COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES, CENTRAL DISTRICT
10 ARMEN G. KOJIKIAN, as an individual, on ) Case No.: BC606392 behalf of himself, all others similarly situated, ) 11 and the general public; TIME TRADERS, ) Class Action INC., a California corporation, on behalf of ) 12 ) itself, all others similarly situated, and the ) Hon. Daniel J. Buckley 13 general public ) ) [PROPOSED] JUDGMENT 14 Plaintiffs, ) ) 15 vs. ) ) 16 ) AMERICAN HONDA MOTOR CO., INC., a ) 17 California corporation; and DOES 1 through ) 100, inclusive, ) 18 ) Defendants. ) 19 ) ) 20 ) ) 21 ) ) 22 ) ) 23 )
24
25 26
27
28
[PROPOSED] JUDGMENT
1 In accordance with, and for the reasons stated in the Order Granting Final Approval of Class
2 Action Settlement, judgment shall be entered whereby Plaintiffs Armen Kojikian and Time Traders, Inc.
3 and all Settlement Class Members shall take nothing from Defendant American Honda Motor Co., Inc.
4 except as expressly set forth in the Order Granting Final Approval of Class Action Settlement and the
5 Settlement Agreement (with addendum thereto) attached thereto as Exhibit “A.
6 Each side shall bear their own costs and fees except as ordered in the Order Granting Plaintiff’s
7 Motion for Attorneys’ Fees, Costs and Service Award.
8 This Judgment does not apply to individuals who have timely opted out of the settlement, their names
9 attached as Exhibit A to the Final Approval Order. Such individuals are excluded from the Settlement
10 Class and are therefore not bound by this Judgment.
11 Pursuant to California Code of Civil Procedure sections 578 and 664.6 and California Rules of
12 Court, Rule 3.769(h), the Court, in the interests of justice, there being no just reason for delay, expressly
13 directs the Clerk of the Court to enter this Judgment, and hereby decrees, that upon entry, it be deemed
14 as a final judgment with respect to all claims by members of the Settlement Class against American
15 Honda Motor Co., Inc. in accordance with the terms of the Settlement Agreement.
16 Without affecting the finality of this Judgment, this Court reserves exclusive and continuing jurisdiction
17 over the Settlement and the Settlement Agreement, including the administration and consummation of
18 the Settlement Agreement.
19 Notice of this Judgment shall be given to the Settlement Class by posting this Judgment on the
20 Claims Administrator’s website.
21 IT IS SO ORDERED.
22 Dated: ______, 2020 ______23 Hon. Daniel J. Buckley 24
25
26
27
28
2 [PROPOSED] JUDGMENT