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.