Unopposed Motion and Memorandum Of
Total Page:16
File Type:pdf, Size:1020Kb
Case 1:18-cv-03984-MHC Document 70 Filed 12/21/20 Page 1 of 66 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT NORTHERN DISTRICT OF GEORGIA ATLANTA DIVISION EMILY PINON, GARY C. KLEIN, KIM BROWN, JOSHUA FRANKUM, DINEZ WEBSTER, and TODD BRYAN, on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated, CASE NO: 1:18-CV-03984-MHC Plaintiffs, v. MERCEDES-BENZ USA, LLC, and DAIMLER AG, Defendants. UNOPPOSED MOTION FOR PRELIMINARY APPROVAL OF PROPOSED CLASS ACTION SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT AND PRELIMINARY CERTIFICATION OF NATIONWIDE SETTLEMENT CLASS AND INCORPORATED MEMORANDUM OF LAW Case 1:18-cv-03984-MHC Document 70 Filed 12/21/20 Page 2 of 66 TABLE OF CONTENTS TABLE OF AUTHORITIES ................................................................................ iv UNOPPOSED MOTION FOR PRELIMINARY APPROVAL OF PROPOSED CLASS ACTION SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT AND PRELIMINARY CERTIFICATION OF NATIONWIDE SETTLEMENT .............................................................................................. 1 MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES ...................................... 4 I. BACKGROUND AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY ................................. 6 II. SUMMARY OF SETTLEMENT TERMS ............................................... 14 A. THE SETTLEMENT CLASS DEFINITION ................................................... 14 B. SETTLEMENT CLASS MEMBER BENEFITS .............................................. 16 1. Reimbursement for Qualified Past Repairs. ................................... 18 2. Reimbursement for Qualified Future Repairs. .............................. 19 3. The Claims Process Is Simple. ......................................................... 21 III. LAW AND ARGUMENT ........................................................................... 23 A. PRELIMINARY APPROVAL IN THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT ........................ 25 B. THE SETTLEMENT MERITS APPROVAL .................................................. 27 1. The Settlement Was The Result Of A Thorough, Informed, Fair Negotiation Process. .......................................................................... 29 2. The Settlement Provides Significant Benefits In Exchange For The Compromise Of Strong Claims. ............................................... 30 a. The Settlement Mitigates the Risks, Expenses, and Delays of Continued Litigation. .................................................................. 32 b. The Claims Process Is Straightforward. ..................................... 33 c. Counsel Will Seek Reasonable Fees and Costs. ......................... 34 3. The Settlement Treats Class Members Equitably. ........................ 35 4. There Are No Undisclosed Side Agreements. ................................. 38 5. The Bennett Factors Support Preliminary Approval. ................... 38 N.D. Ga. No. 1:18-CV-03984-MHC ii Case 1:18-cv-03984-MHC Document 70 Filed 12/21/20 Page 3 of 66 a. The Benefits of Settlement Outweigh the Risks at Trial. ............. 38 b. The Settlement Is Within the Range of Possible Recoveries and Is Fair, Adequate, and Reasonable. ................................................ 39 c. Continued Litigation Would Be Expensive and Lengthy. ........... 40 d. The Degree of Opposition to the Settlement. .............................. 41 e. The Stage of Proceedings. ........................................................... 41 C. THE COURT WILL BE ABLE TO CERTIFY THE CLASS .......................... 43 1. The Class Satisfies Rule 23(a). ......................................................... 44 a. The Class is Sufficiently Numerous. ............................................ 44 b. Common Questions of Law and Fact Exist. ................................ 44 c. The Class Representatives’ Claims are Typical. ........................ 45 d. The Class Representatives and Class Counsel are Adequate. .... 46 2. The Class Satisfies Rule 23(b)(3). .................................................... 48 a. Common Issues of Law and Fact Predominate. ......................... 48 b. Class Treatment Is Superior. ...................................................... 49 D. THE PROPOSED CLASS NOTICE IS THE BEST PRACTICABLE ................ 51 E. THE PROPOSED SCHEDULE FOR NOTICE AND APPROVAL .................... 52 IV. THE COURT SHOULD PRELIMINARILY ENJOIN PARALLEL PROCEEDINGS. ......................................................................................... 53 V. CONCLUSION ............................................................................................ 57 N.D. Ga. No. 1:18-CV-03984-MHC iii Case 1:18-cv-03984-MHC Document 70 Filed 12/21/20 Page 4 of 66 TABLE OF AUTHORITIES Cases Adams v. S. Farm Bureau Life Ins. Co., 493 F.3d 1276 (11th Cir. 2007) ............... 52 Adams v. Sentinel Offender Servs., LLC, No. 1:17-cv-2813-WSD, 2018 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 78841 (N.D. Ga. May 10, 2018) .............................................................. 39 Alin v. Honda Motor Co., Ltd., 2012 WL 8751045 (D. N.J. Apr. 13, 2012) .......... 36 Amchem Prods., Inc. v. Windsor, 521 U.S. 591 (1997) .................................... 43, 50 Babineau v. Fed. Express Corp., 576 F.3d 1183 (11th Cir. 2009) .......................... 49 Beaty v. Contl. Auto. Sys. U.S., Inc., CV-10-S-2440-NE, 2012 WL 12895014 (N.D. Ala. Feb. 6, 2012) ...................................................................................... 40 Behrens v. Wometco Enters., Inc., 118 F.R.D. 534 (S.D. Fla. 1988) ...................... 40 Bennett v. Behring Corp., 737 F.2d 982 (11th Cir. 1984) .................... 24, 26, 39, 40 Burrows v. Purchasing Power, LLC, No. 1:12-cv-22800, 2013 WL 10167232 (S.D. Fla. Oct. 7, 2013) .......................................................................................... 39, 40 Camp v. City of Pelham, 2:10-CV-01270-MHH, 2014 WL 1764919 (N.D. Ala. May 1, 2014) ................................................................................................. 39, 40 Carnegie v. Mut. Sav. Life Ins. Co., Civ-99-S-3292-NE, 2004 WL 3715446 (N.D. Ala. Nov. 23, 2004).............................................................................................. 24 Carriuolo v. Gen. Motors Co., 823 F.3d 977 (11th Cir. 2016) ............................... 49 China Agritech, Inc. v. Resh, 584 U.S. __, 138 S.Ct. 1800, 201 L.Ed.2d 123 (2018) .............................................................................................................................. 37 Columbus Drywall & Insulation, Inc. v. Masco Corp., 258 F.R.D. 545 (N.D. Ga. 2007) ............................................................................................................. 42, 43 Cox v. Am. Cast Iron Pipe Co., 784 F.2d 1546 (11th Cir. 1986) ............................ 44 David v. Am. Suzuki Motor Corp., 2010 WL 1628362 (S.D. Fla. Apr. 15, 2010) .. 31 Faught v. Am. Home Shield Corp., 668 F.3d 1233 (11th Cir. 2011) ....................... 27 Feller v. Transamerica Life Ins. Co., No. 16-cv-01378 CAS (GJSx), 2018 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 196062 (C.D. Cal. Nov. 16, 2018) .................................................. 57 Fresco v. Auto Data Direct, Inc., 2007 WL 2330895 (S.D. Fla. May 11, 2007) ...23, 24 George v. Academy Mort’g Corp. (UT), 369 F.Supp.3d 1356 (N.D. Ga. 2019) ..... 33 Grogan v. Aaron’s Inc., No. 1:18-cv-02821-JPB, Slip Op. (N.D. Ga. May 1, 2020) .............................................................................................................................. 57 Hawkins v. JPMorgan Chase Bank, N.A., 2020 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 213064 (M.D. Fla. Nov. 15, 2020) .............................................................................................. 38 N.D. Ga. No. 1:18-CV-03984-MHC iv Case 1:18-cv-03984-MHC Document 70 Filed 12/21/20 Page 5 of 66 Horton v. Merrill Lynch, Pierce, Fenner & Smith, Inc., 855 F.Supp. 825 (E.D. N.C. 1994) .................................................................................................................... 25 In re: Am. Online Spin-Off Accounts Litig., No. CV 03-6971-RSWL, 2005 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 45625 (C.D. Cal. May 9, 2005) ...................................................... 54 In re: Baldwin-United Corp., 770 F.2d 328 (2d Cir. 1985) .............................. 54, 55 In re: Bridgestone/Firestone, Tires Prods. Liab. Litig., 333 F.3d 763 (7th Cir. 2003) .................................................................................................................... 54 In re: Bromine Antitrust Litig, 203 F.R.D. 403 (S.D. Ind. 2001) ............................ 25 In re: Checking Account Overdraft Litig., 275 F.R.D. 654 (S.D. Fla. 2011) .. 26, 28, 30 In re: Checking Account Overdraft Litig., 307 F.R.D. 656 (S.D. Fla. 2015) ... 45, 49 In re: Diet Drugs Prods. Liab. Litig., 282 F.3d 220 (3d Cir. 2002) ........................ 55 In re: Equifax Customer Data Sec. Breach Litig., 2020 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 118209 (N.D. Ga. Mar. 17, 2020) ..................................................................................... 26 In re: Joint E. & S, Dist. Asbestos Litig., 134 F.R.D. 32 (E.D.N.Y. & S.D.N.Y. 1990) .................................................................................................................... 55 In re: Mexico Money Transfer Litig., 98 C 2407, 98 C 2408, 1999 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 17268 (N.D. Ill. Oct. 13, 1999) ............................................................... 57 In re: Motorsports Merchandise Antitrust Litig., 112 F.Supp.2d 1329 (N.D. Ga. 2000) .................................................................................................................... 39 In re: Progressive Ins. Corp. Underwriting