1 the margarian law firm hovanes margarian (sbn: … · 2020. 6. 29. · hovanes margarian (sbn:...
TRANSCRIPT
4851-2921-4145.1 SUPPLEMENT IN SUPPORT OF PLAINTIFFS’ MOTION FOR FINAL APPROVAL OF CLASS ACTION SETTLEMENT
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
THE MARGARIAN LAW FIRM HOVANES MARGARIAN (SBN: 246359) SHUSHANIK MARGARIAN (SBN: 318617) 801 N. Brand Blvd., Suite 210 Glendale, CA 91203 Telephone: (818) 553-1000 Facsimile: (818) 553-1005 [email protected] Attorneys for Plaintiffs, ARMEN G. KOJIKIAN TIME TRADERS, INC.
SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA
FOR THE COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES, CENTRAL DISTRICT
ARMEN G. KOJIKIAN, as an individual, on behalf of himself, all others similarly situated, and the general public; TIME TRADERS, INC., a California corporation, on behalf of itself, all others similarly situated, and the general public Plaintiffs, vs. AMERICAN HONDA MOTOR CO., INC., a California corporation; and DOES 1 through 100, inclusive, Defendants.
) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) )
Case No.: BC606392 Class Action Hon. Daniel J. Buckley SUPPLEMENT IN SUPPORT OF PLAINTIFFS’ MOTION FOR FINAL APPROVAL OF CLASS ACTION SETTLEMENT Date: July 14, 2020 Time: 11:00 a.m. Place: Department 1 Complaint Filed: January 8, 2016 Trial Date: None set
E-Served: Jun 26 2020 2:37PM PDT Via Case Anywhere
SUPPLEMENT IN SUPPORT OF PLAINTIFFS’ MOTION FOR FINAL APPROVAL OF CLASS
ACTION SETTLEMENT
2
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
Plaintiffs Armen Kojikian and Time Traders, Inc. (“Plaintiffs”), hereby respectfully submit the
following Supplement to their Motion for Final Approval of Class Action Settlement in connection with
the July 14, 2020 final approval hearing in the above-referenced matter. This Supplement is intended
to (1) provide final claims data (because plaintiffs’ prior submission pre-dated the Claims Deadline),
(2) update the final “opt out” totals, and (3) address supplemental or new objections that were received
when the Parties stipulated to extend the comment/objection deadline in the Supplemental Postcard
Notice that was sent to owners of the affected Class Vehicles on May 15, 2020.
I. THE SUPPLEMENTAL POSTCARD NOTICE.
On April 20, 2020, the Parties submitted a request to the Court, by way of a posting on
CaseAnywhere, for an order that approves the dissemination of a Supplemental Postcard Notice. The
April 20, 2020 posting states in its entirety, as follows:
To the Honorable Court: The parties in the above-referenced Kojikian v. American Honda Motor Co., Inc. action respectfully seek Court approval to send out a supplemental class notice. As set forth in the stipulation and proposed order (separately served via Case Anywhere designating the Court as a recipient), this notice is necessary to (1) inform the class that additional information about the oil consumption testing procedures under the warranty extension offered through the settlement is posted on the settlement website, and (2) correct an error in the “Powertrain Warranty Gap Period” definition in the original class notice. The parties further request that to accommodate the supplemental class notice, and in light of the COVID-19 pandemic, the May 28, 2020 final approval hearing date be continued by 45 days (to early July 2020) and the opt out and comment deadline be extended to a date 21 days after the mailing of the supplemental class notice. The parties are available for a call with the Court if the Court deems it necessary.
Declaration of Eric Kizirian (“Kiz. Dec.”) ¶ 2. The Court responded to the Parties’ joint request for an
order the same day (4/20/2020), as follows:
Unfortunately, I cannot sign the order. The PJ’s General Order is quite explicit that only emergency matters can be heard. But nothing prevents your stipulation to be the authority to send out the notice. You will be getting notice that the hearing is being continued to July 14. My courtroom will not reopen until June 22. We are in the process of ordering the continuances of many matters, including yours.
SUPPLEMENT IN SUPPORT OF PLAINTIFFS’ MOTION FOR FINAL APPROVAL OF CLASS
ACTION SETTLEMENT
3
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
Stay safe and healthy.
Kiz. Decl. ¶ 3. Thus, consistent with the Court’s April 20, 2020 response, on May 15, 2020, the Parties
disseminated a Supplemental Postcard Notice to affected owners of the Class Vehicles1 that included
the updates the Parties proposed in their CaseAnywhere posting (and concurrently submitted stipulation
and settlement addendum). The Supplemental Postcard Notice, which is reproduced in its entirety
below, states as follows:
Supp. Kim Decl. ¶ 4, Ex. E.
II. CLASS MEMBER RESPONSE TO THE SUPPLEMENTAL POSTCARD NOTICE.
Following the mailing of the Supplemental Postcard Notice:
a) James and Teresa Copenhaver, who had previously objected to the Settlement and whose
objection was submitted to the Court in connection with Plaintiffs’ Motion for Final
Approval withdrew their objection and have stated they intend to be bound by the
Settlement terms and its release. Supp. Kim Decl. ¶ 5, Ex. H.
b) Nineteen (19) additional opt out requests were received. Thus, the previously submitted
opt out list has been supplemented and is hereby resubmitted as Exhibit F to the
1 Supplemental Declaration of Julie Kim (“Supp. Kim Decl.”) ¶ 4.
SUPPLEMENT IN SUPPORT OF PLAINTIFFS’ MOTION FOR FINAL APPROVAL OF CLASS
ACTION SETTLEMENT
4
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
Supplemental Declaration of Julie Kim. Supp. Kim Decl. ¶ 5, Ex. F. This list should be
attached to the final approval order.
c) Ten (10) additional objections, and one “supplement” to a prior objection were
received, but only one new objection and one supplement to a prior objection
addressed matters in the Supplemental Postcard Notice. Thus, with the withdrawl of the
Copenhaver objection, there are now 16 total objectors in a Class that includes 210,821
Class Vehicles and 429,191 Class Members (0.004% objection rate). Among these
additional objections, only the “Supplemental” objection of Allison Fischer and the
objection of Jay Almaula make reference to matters addressed in the Supplemenal Postcard
Notice.
As demonstrated herein, none of the additional objections (like the original objections) have merit, and
each objection should be overruled.
(a) Matthew Stewart Objection (Received May 18, 2020) (Ex. F to Supp. Kim Decl.)
Objector Matthew Stewart does not object on the basis of information contained in the
Supplemental Postcard Notice. And his objection takes issue with “the crummy workmanship” of a
dealership—not the terms of the Settlement. Nevertheless, the Parties investigated Mr. Stewart’s repair
history and submitted documents and it turns out Mr. Stewart received four oil consumption tests, the
last of which showed his vehicle was consuming 1 quart of oil every 1700 miles (1669 miles).
Although this level of oil consumption is not excessive (excessive oil consumption is 1 quart every
1,000 miles (Dec. of George Kudo (“Kudo Dec.”) ¶ 6(d)), it appears Mr. Stewart still received the
promised warranty repair. He was asked to pay out of pocket only for repairs that are unrelated to the
piston issue in the Settlement (specifically, repairs necessary to remedy leaks in his car). Thus, his
complaint related to the “over $1,000” he had to pay was for repairs that are not the subject of this
lawsuit or the Settlement. And to the extent Mr. Stewart thinks these are costs that should have been
covered by the Settlement, he could submit a claim for out-of-pocket costs under the Settlement and
will be reimbursed if those are covered out-of-pocket expenses. In the end, Mr. Stewart highlights a
personal issue with his car and his repair. His objection does not change the conclusion that the
SUPPLEMENT IN SUPPORT OF PLAINTIFFS’ MOTION FOR FINAL APPROVAL OF CLASS
ACTION SETTLEMENT
5
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
Settlement is fair, reasonable, and provides meaningful benefits to the Class. Mr. Stewart’s objection
should be overruled.
(b) Michael Weaver Objection (Received May 28, 2020) (Ex. F to Supp. Kim Decl.)
Objector Michael Weaver does not object on the basis of information contained in the
Supplemental Postcard Notice. Mr. Weaver owns a low mileage 2011 Acura MDX. Critically, Mr.
Weaver admits his car does not exhibit excessive oil consumption. Nevertheless, Mr. Weaver
speculates he is driving a “zero dollar value vehicle” that has no “trade-in value or open market worth.”
Mr. Stewart does not provide any basis for his summary conclusion. Yet he argues the Settlement
should not have a years in service limitation (8 years) and should provide coverage “up to 100,000
miles regardless of vehicle age.” This is the classic “the settlement should be better” argument by a
customer who, despite having no oil consumption issues, thinks the Settlement is not generous enough.
Mr. Stewart’s proposal for a 100,000-mile limit, without any date restriction, would require AHM to
warrant his car for 22 years, the time it would take Mr. Weaver to reach 100,000 miles at his current
4,500 mile per year driving pace. This is unreasonable on its face. And in any event, time and mileage
limitations are a common and widely accepted characteristic of automotive warranties. That the
Settlement’s warranty extension benefit is based on this commonly accepted dual warranty limitation
metric does not make the Settlement unfair or otherwise objectionable. Mr. Weaver’s objection should
be overruled.
(c) Gerard Berens Objection (Received May 28, 2020) (Ex. F to Supp. Kim Decl.)
Objector Gerard Berens does not object on the basis of information contained in the
Supplemental Postcard Notice. He has provided a three sentence submission that (1) identifies his
vehicle (2012 Acura TL), (2) makes the summary claim that he “object[s] to the settlement and the
proposed settlement and the settlement fees to be paid,” and (3) includes an inconsistent request to
“[p]lease opt me out of this settlement” since he “did not ask[] to be represented by any attorney.”
Assuming Mr. Berens intended to object to the Settlement, his one line objection to the Settlement and
fees, without further explanation or argument, provides no basis to not approve the Settlement. And if
SUPPLEMENT IN SUPPORT OF PLAINTIFFS’ MOTION FOR FINAL APPROVAL OF CLASS
ACTION SETTLEMENT
6
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
Mr. Berens actually intended to opt out of the Settlement, he has no standing to object to the
Settlement’s terms. His objection should be overruled.
(d) Fabio Principi Objection (Received May 28, 2020) (Ex. F to Supp. Kim Decl.)
Objector Fabio Principi does not object on the basis of information contained in the
Supplemental Postcard Notice. He has objected to the Settlement because it “fails to address the
additional problems that arise with the vehicles in the Class Action Suit” – specifically, an alleged
“sloppy piston” concern that affects gas consumption in the vehicles. Because Mr. Principi’s objection
targets a different issue and not the oil consumption claim that is the focus of this suit and this
Settlement, his objection lacks merit. Mr. Principi’s objection should be overruled.
(e) Eric Fanucchi Objeciton (Received June 3, 2020) (Ex. F to Supp. Kim Decl.)
Objector Eric Fanucchi does not object on the basis of information contained in the
Supplemental Postcard Notice. Like objector Michael Weaver, Mr. Fanucchi owns a low mileage 2011
Acura MDX. Mr. Fanucchi makes no claim his car has an oil consumption problem. He objects to the
Settlement because, unlike most drivers, he has a low mileage vehicle with 61,000 miles on the
odometer after 9 years of vehicle ownership. Thus, he states the extended warranty (with an 8
year/125,000 mile limit) “means nothing to [his] situation.” But it is not that Mr. Fanucchi did not get a
benefit. If his vehicle had experienced a covered problem during the 8 year/125,000 mile extended
warranty period, the warranty would have provided him with a free repair. That Mr. Fanucchi’s car
does not exhibit any concern does not mean the Settlement benefit “means nothing” to him. His
objection is akin to a customer who buys an extended warranty to have peace of mind if the product
malfunctions, and when the product does not malfuctnion during the warranty period, asking for a
refund because the extended warranty “meant nothing” to him. That claim would not entitle the
consumer to a refund. And Mr. Fanucchi’s comparable objection does not have merit. Mr. Fanucchi’s
objection should be overruled.
(f) Kevin Cubberly Objection (Received June 4, 2020) (Ex. F to Supp. Kim Decl.)
Objector Kevin Cubberly does not object on the basis of information contained in the
Supplemental Postcard Notice. Mr. Cubberly states that he owns a 2010 Acura TL with 85,000 miles
SUPPLEMENT IN SUPPORT OF PLAINTIFFS’ MOTION FOR FINAL APPROVAL OF CLASS
ACTION SETTLEMENT
7
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
on the odometer. His objection is based on a misunderstanding of the Settlement’s terms and the
benefits available to the Class. Mr. Cubberly claims the Settlement “would exclude me from
reasonably recouping” benefits because the Powertrain Warranty period is limited to “8 years from the
date of the original sale.” This is wrong. To be sure, Mr. Cubberly’s car was outside the 8
year/125,000 mile warranty extension period when Honda sent the February 2019 warranty extension
notice. But this is precisely why the Settlement also provides for “gap period” coverage. As Honda’s
February 2019 warranty extension notice makes clear, “Acura is extending the power-train warranty
coverage to cover engine issues related to excessive oil consumption form the original coverage of 6
years/70,000 miles to 8 years/125,000 miles, whichever comes first. To further ensure client
satisfaction and confidence, any affected vehicles from now [February 2019] until September 1,
2019 will be covered regardless of time in service or mileage.” Kudo Decl. ¶ 2, Ex. A. Thus, Mr.
Cubberly’s 2010 Acura TL was in fact covered under the Settlement and he received a benefit. That
Mr. Cubberly did not present his unspecified oil consumption complaint to a dealer for a warranty
repair does not mean he received no benefit. His objection should be overruled.
(g) Supplement to Allison Fischer Objection (Received June 15, 2020) (Ex. F to Supp. Kim. Decl.)
Objector Allison Fischer, who previously objected to the Settlement based on perceived
technical deficiencies in the Parties’ final approval submission, sent a “supplement” to her prior
objection following receipt of the Supplemental Postcard Notice. Her supplemental objection raises
additional perceived technical defects in the Parties’ Final Approval Motion, and now attempts to frame
a substantive objection to the Settlement based on a misunderstanding of the Settlement and the
requirements of California law. Critically, the only oil consumption reference is in the original
objection, which simply states that based on her “personal experience,” Ms. Fischer thinks her “vehicle
consumes oil far more quickly than vehicles I have owned in the past.” Her supplemental objection
still does not claim she has ever taken her car to a dealership to complain about oil consumption, has
asked that an oil consumption test be performed, or that she did not get the February 2019 Warranty
Extension Notice letter from Acura. Still, we address each of her supplemental concerns in turn, none
of which (again) have any merit and should be overruled.
SUPPLEMENT IN SUPPORT OF PLAINTIFFS’ MOTION FOR FINAL APPROVAL OF CLASS
ACTION SETTLEMENT
8
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
Claim No. 1: The Supplemental Postcard Notice “changes a Core Settlement Term” without
Court Approval. Ms. Fischer erroneously argues that the Supplemental Postcard Notice “appears to be
in error” or that it represents a “change to a core settlement term” without Court approval. None of
these contentions have merit. As set forth below, the Court was apprised of this change before the
Supplemental Postcard Notice was mailed. Further, the Supplemental Postcard Notice corrects a true
clerical error. The corrected definition of the Gap Period is consistent with the substantive terms as set
forth in the Settlement Agreement. Indeed, a customer notice that informed the Class that a warranty
extension had been adopted is required by California law.
First, it simply is not the case that the Parties unilaterally sent out a Supplemental Postcard
Notice. To the contrary, both the fact that a Supplemental Postcard Notice was going to be sent and its
proposed contents were put before the Court in a stipulation and proposed order on April 20, 2020.
Kiz. Decl. ¶ 4, Ex. A. This Stipulation explains, in detail, how the clerical mistake in the Class Notice
came about and why a corrective notice, by way of the Supplemental Postcard Notice, is necessary.
For the Court’s convenience, this detailed explanation from the Stipulation is reproduced below:
Plaintiffs Armen G. Kojikian and Time Traders, Inc. (“Plaintiffs”) and defendant
American Honda Motor Co., Inc. (“AHM”), through their respective undersigned counsel
of record, hereby stipulate and agree as follows.
1) In October 2018, Plaintiffs and AHM agreed to a putative Class Action
Settlement Agreement and Release (“Agreement”) that, among other things, (a) extends
the Powertrain Warranty Period in Class Vehicles up to 8 years/125,000 miles
(whichever occurs first), and (b) for Class Vehicles that are outside this Powertrain
Warranty Period, provides warranty coverage for excessive oil consumption complaints
for a six month “Powertrain Warranty Gap Period” regardless of the Class Vehicles’
time or miles in service.
2) The Agreement’s first draft defined the start of the “Powertrain Warranty
Gap Period” by reference to the Effective Date of the Agreement. But before the
Agreement was signed, to ensure timely compliance with various state laws that require
SUPPLEMENT IN SUPPORT OF PLAINTIFFS’ MOTION FOR FINAL APPROVAL OF CLASS
ACTION SETTLEMENT
9
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
consumer notice following adoption of an “adjustment program”2 (like the Powertrain
Warranty Period and Powertrain Warranty Gap Period) within statutorily-set time
periods,3 AHM sent affected Class Members a Warranty Extension Notice in February
2019 (“Warranty Extension Notice”) and implemented the warranty extensions.
3) The Warranty Extension Notice that AHM mailed in February 2019 to
registered owners informed them that the Powertrain Warranty Period and Powertrain
Warranty Gap Period had been adopted and had commenced for Class Vehicles. This
Notice states the Powertrain Warranty Gap Period is from February 2019 to September
1, 2019.
4) Since implementing the warranty extensions, AHM has paid to repair over
10,000 Class Vehicles under the Powertrain Warranty Gap Period alone. A true and
correct copy of Honda’s February 2019 Warranty Extension notice is attached hereto as
Exhibit A.
5) Before the Agreement was signed, AHM modified the “Settlement Terms”
(Sec. III(B)) provision in the draft Agreement to state that repairs would be performed
under the warranty extension after the Agreement was signed, rather than after Class
Notice. AHM made this change because it was going to send a Warranty Extension
Notice before preliminary approval. The Settlement Terms also were changed from the
original draft to state the Warranty Extension Notice AHM would send would be separate
and apart from the Class Notice that will be sent after preliminary approval.
6) In October 2019, this Court granted preliminary approval to the proposed
class action settlement and proposed Class Notice. Even though AHM had already
2 For example, California Civil Code section 1795.90(d) defines an adjustment program as “any program or policy that expands or extends the consumer’s warranty beyond its stated limit or under which a manufacturer offers to pay for all or any part of the cost of repairing, or to reimburse consumers for all or any part of the cost of repairing, any condition that may substantially affect vehicle durability, reliability, or performance, other than service provided under a safety or emission-related recall campaign.”
3 For example, California Civil Code section 1795.92(a) states that “[a] manufacturer shall, within 90 days of the adoption of an adjustment program, subject to priority for safety or emission-related recalls, notify by first-class mail all owners or lessees of motor vehicles eligible under the program of the condition giving rise to and the principal terms and conditions of the program.”
SUPPLEMENT IN SUPPORT OF PLAINTIFFS’ MOTION FOR FINAL APPROVAL OF CLASS
ACTION SETTLEMENT
10
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
implemented the warranty extension in February 2019 and notified the Class Members of
this fact, both the Amended Class Action Settlement Agreement4 and Class Notice that
were presented to the Court on preliminary approval inadvertently retained the
Powertrain Warranty Gap Period as the six month period following the “Effective Date”
of the Amended Agreement, rather than the six month period following the Warranty
Extension Notice that implemented the warranty extension.
7) The parties agree that a Supplemental Class Notice that provides a
corrected definition of the Powertrain Warranty Gap Period, consistent with the Warranty
Extension Notice that AHM sent to the Class Members in February 2019, is necessary
and justified. The proposed Supplemental Class Notice also informs Class Members that
(1) additional information about the warranty extension benefit, based on questions
received from the Class, are posted on the Settlement website, and (2) in light of the
COVID-19 pandemic and information contained in the Supplemental Postcard Notice,
the Final Approval Hearing date is continued and the deadline to opt out or comment on
the Settlement are extended. A copy of the proposed Supplemental Class Notice is
attached hereto as Exhibit B for the Court’s approval.
8) In addition, to correct the definition of “Powertrain Warranty Gap Period”
as set forth in the “Second Amended Class Action Settlement Agreement and Release”
(“Amended Agreement”), the parties have executed an Addendum to the Amended Class
Action Settlement Agreement and Release (“Addendum”) dated April 9 2020. This
Addendum includes the corrected definition of the “Powertrain Warranty Gap Period”
and supersedes the definition of same in Section I(48) in the Amended Agreement. The
Addendum makes no other changes to the Amended Agreement the Court approved in
October 2019. A copy of the Addendum is attached hereto as Exhibit C.
Kizirian Decl. ¶ 4, Ex. 4.
4 The Agreement was amended by the parties prior to preliminary approval to incorporate clarifications and additional terms the Court requested. The current operative settlement agreement is the “Amended Class Action Settlement Agreement and Release” (“Amended Agreement”).
SUPPLEMENT IN SUPPORT OF PLAINTIFFS’ MOTION FOR FINAL APPROVAL OF CLASS
ACTION SETTLEMENT
11
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
On April 20, 2020, within hours of the Parties’ submission of the Stipualtion and Proposed
Order, this Court responded to the Parties’ stipulation and stated, in relevant part, as follows:
Unfortunately, I cannot sign the order. The PJ’s General Order is quite explicit that only
emergency matters can be heard. But nothing prevents your stipulation to be the
authority to send out the notice.
Kizirian Decl. ¶ 3. (emphasis added). Thus, consistent with the Court’s response and based on the
Parties’ stipulation, a corrective Supplemental Postcard Notice was sent.
There is nothing that bars a defendant from implementing a settlement benefit before Court
approval. And in this case, because AHM agreed to a warranty extension under a signed settlement
agreement, it was required by law to provide notice within a statutory time period. That statutory time
period would expire long before the Court could hold a preliminary approval hearing. AHM did not
benefit from this process in the least. To the contrary, it incurred the costs of two class notices (the
February 2019 warranty extension letter and then the February 2020 Class notice).
Ms. Fischer’s supplemental objection claims must be viewed through the lens of the confirmed
settlement data that is before the Court. While Ms. Fischer complains about the “Gap Period”
definition and the six-month Gap Period in general as being insufficient, the warranty extension data
based on Class Member response tells a far different story. As set forth in the Declaration of James
Janik, nearly 11,000 Class Members had no concerns with the length or start date of the six-month Gap
Period and claimed nearly $50 million in warranty repair benefits. This robust response to the February
2019 warranty extension letter also shows that the Supplemental Postcard Notice truly corrected a
clerical error—it in no way prejudiced any Class Member. Ultimately, if Ms. Fischer is dissatisfied
with the length of the Gap Period or any other provision in the Settlement, the Parties agree they will
not object to a late opt out request that allows her to preserve her rights. But her objection should not
serve as a basis to derail an abundantly fair, reasonable, and adequate settlement that has delivered a
meaningful and confirmed benefit that exceeds $69 million in warranty repairs to date to tens of
thousands of Class Members.
Claim No. 2: The Declaration of Julie Kim did not include the referenced exhibits. This is not
a challenge to any benefit provided under the Settlement, and is not a claim that the Settlement is not
SUPPLEMENT IN SUPPORT OF PLAINTIFFS’ MOTION FOR FINAL APPROVAL OF CLASS
ACTION SETTLEMENT
12
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
fair, adequate, and reasonable. Still, counsel confirmed that Ms. Kim’s declaration was inadvertently
filed without the refernced exhibits and refiled the declaration with exhibits on June 15, 2020.
Claim No. 4: The final claims data needs to be updated. This is not a challenge to any benefit
provided under the Settlement, and is not a claim that the Settlement is not fair, adequate, and
reasonable. And as Ms. Fischer correctly notes, the original declaration by Julie Kim was due to the
Court before the expiration of the May 13, 2020 Claims Deadline. Thus, a final claim total could not
be provided. The Supplemental Declaration of Julie Kim provides this additional detail. Supp. Kim
Decl. ¶ 9.
Claim No. 5: Information has not been provided on the Supplemental Postcard Notice. This
is not a challenge to any benefit provided under the Settlement, and is not a claim that the Settlement is
not fair, adequate, and reasonable. And of course, the Parties set forth all the details about the
Supplemental Postcard Notice in their stipulation submitted on April 20, 2020. Further, the
Supplemental Postcard Notice mailing post-dates the filing of the Final Approval Motion. The
additional details that relate to this filing are set forth in the Supplemental Declaration of Julie Kim.
Supp. Kim Decl. ¶ 4, Ex. E.
Claim No. 6: The original Class Notice “was initially undeliverable to nearly 20% of putative
class members.” This is not a challenge to any benefit provided under the Settlement, and is not a
claim that the Settlement is not fair, adequate, and reasonable. And Ms. Fischer’s math is simply
wrong. As of March 18, 2020, AHM had received 23,518 undeliverable Class Notices out of the
429,191 that were mailed. Supp. Kim Decl. ¶ 3. Of course, that is a 5.48% undeliverable rate, not
20%. Further, AHM was able to obtain updated addresses for 1,648 of the 23,518 undeliverable notices
and the original notice was re-mailed to these updated addresses on May 22, 2020.
Claim No. 7: The average claim value of $13.06 needs “clarification.” This is not a challenge
to any benefit provided under the Settlement that affects Ms. Fischer since she makes no claim that she
personally submitted a claim under the Settlement. As set forth in the Supplemental Declaration of
Julie Kim, although a high number of claims were submitted, most were ineligible or incomplete.
Pending the response to cure letters sent, there are 18 approved claims for $6,183.87 ($343.54 average).
Supp. Kim Decl. ¶ 9. And while this is indeed less than the nearly $4,000 cost for a piston repair, most
SUPPLEMENT IN SUPPORT OF PLAINTIFFS’ MOTION FOR FINAL APPROVAL OF CLASS
ACTION SETTLEMENT
13
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
of the claims received were for the partial payments class members made for piston repairs in cases
where a large portion of the cost was covered by Honda under goodwill in the ordinary course of
business. Id.
In short, like her original objection, the vast majority of the claims Ms. Fischer submits in her
supplemental object do not actually challenge the fairness of a settlement term. Instead, Ms. Fischer in
large part highlights perceived procedural concerns with the final approval submission that are either
wrong or have been cured. Her substantive challenge to the “Gap Period” definition is misplaced. Her
supplemental objection, like the original objection, should be overruled.
(h) Serge Morosoff Objection (Received June 15, 2020) (Ex. F to Supp. Kim. Decl.)
Objector Serge Morosoff does not object on the basis of information contained in the
Supplemental Postcard Notice. Mr. Morosoff owns a 2010 MDX. He claims it is “unfair to only
include those that repaired or replaced pistons and/or piston rings” as eligible claimants for out-of-
pocket costs under the settlement since this would exclude “people like [Mr. Morosoff] that are
attentive and know how to maintain cars.” Mr. Morosoff claims he did not perform any piston repairs
and instead chose to perform timely oil changes. Thus, he claims he has no eligible out-of-pocket cost
to claim under the settlement. But this is not a fault of the Settlement. Indeed, Mr. Morosoff claims his
car allegedly experienced excessive oil consumption in 2016 (when the car was six years old and
presumably under the original powertrain warranty). Yet he chose to just replace the oil.
Unsurprisingly, Mr. Morosoff then directs his complaint toward the 1 qt./1,000-mile excessive oil
consumption standard under the Settlement. But as set forth in the Declaraion of George Kudo, this
standard is not specific to this Settlement and thus, is not a Settlement term. Declaration of George
Kudo ¶¶ 4, 6. Mr. Morosoff’s objection should be overruled.
(i) Allan Staheli Objection (Received June 15, 2020) (Ex. F to Supp. Kim. Decl.)
Objector Allan Staheli does not object on the basis of information contained in the
Supplemental Postcard Notice. Mr. Staheli states that he owns a 2011 MDX. He does “not feel there
has [been] enough effort from [Honda] to rectify this [oil consumption] issue” and that “a recall on this
issue would have been more appropriate and would have better served [his] vehicle.” Of course, a
SUPPLEMENT IN SUPPORT OF PLAINTIFFS’ MOTION FOR FINAL APPROVAL OF CLASS
ACTION SETTLEMENT
14
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
recall remedy is typically provided when a safety related concern is identified. Mr. Staheli does not
make a safety claim. And the generous warranty extension that was provided by way of this Settlement
is precisely Honda’s effort to “rectify this issue.” Mr. Staheli also bemoans the fact that his 9-year-old
car, with 147,800 miles, is now outside the warranty period and asserts that he did not get the February
2019 warranty extension letter. Mr. Staheli attributes this to an address change—Mr. Staheli states he
moved on June 15, 2019 from his old address on N. Hollow View Court after that date. Honda checked
its campaign records and has confirmed that the February 2019 warranty extension letter was sent to
Mr. Staheli in February 2019 (before his address change) to the very address he identifies in his
objection. Supp. Kim Decl. ¶ 6. Mr. Staheli’s objection lacks merit and should be overruled.
(j) Jay Almaula Objection (Received June 15, 2020) (Ex. F to Supp. Kim. Decl.)
Objector Jay Almaula states that he owns a 2010 MDX. Although he does not claim to have
experienced excessive oil consumption, he argues that the Gap Period should commence after the
Settlement receives final approval because he ostensibly “did not receive the warranty extension notice
in Feburary 2019 as asserted by Acura.” Mr. Almaula, however, identifies his current address on Lois
Avenue in Sunnyvale, California. Honda checked its campaign records and has confirmed that the
February 2019 warranty extension letter was sent to Mr. Almaula to the same address he identifies in
his objection. Supp. Kim Decl. ¶ 6. Mr. Staheli’s objection lacks merit and should be overruled.
(k) Janice Perry Objection (Received June 15, 2020) (Ex. F to Supp. Kim. Decl.)
Objector Janice Perry does not object on the basis of information contained in the Supplemental
Postcard Notice. Ms. Perry claims she owns an “Acura” (model and model year are not identified).
The car is a low mileage vehicle—with 58,236 miles—that Ms. Perry claims she had tested for
excessive oil consumption upon receipt of the February 2019 warranty extension notice. She admits
the vehicle did not meet the excessive oil consumption standard. Thus, her vehicle was not eligible for
a repair. She speculates, based on her son-in-law’s advice, that “this problem will only get worse and
that it will cause all kinds of major issues in the future.” This, however, is not a valid objection to the
Settlement’s terms. Ms. Perry admittedly does not own a car with an excessive oil consumption
problem. And the fact that her car may, in the future, exhibit this problem outside the generous time
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
4820-0773-4465.1 Case No. BC606392
DECLARATION OF ERIC Y. KIZIRIAN IN SUPPORT OF FINAL APPROVAL OF CLASS SETTLEMENT
LEWIS BRISBOIS BISGAARD & SMITH LLP ATTORNEYS AT LAW
LEWIS BRISBOIS BISGAARD & SMITH LLP ERIC Y. KIZIRIAN, SB# 210584 E-Mail: [email protected] MICHAEL GRIMALDI, SB# 280939 E-Mail: [email protected] DYANNE CHO SB# 306190 E-Mail: [email protected] 633 West 5th Street, Suite 4000 Los Angeles, California 90071 Tel.: 213.250.1800 Fax: 213.250.7900 Attorneys for Defendant, American Honda Motor Co., Inc.
SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA
COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES, CENTRAL DISTRICT
ARMEN G. KOJIKIAN, as an individual, on behalf of himself, all others similarly situated, and the general public, TIME TRADERS, INC., as a California Corporation, on behalf of itself, all others similarly situated, and the general public,
Plaintiffs,
vs. AMERICAN HONDA MOTOR CO., INC., a California Corporation; and DOES 1 THROUGH
100, inclusive,
Defendant.
Case No. BC606392 DECLARATION OF ERIC Y. KIZIRIAN
IN SUPPORT OF FINAL APPROVAL OF
CLASS SETTLEMENT JUDGE: HON. DANIEL J. BUCKLEY DATE: JULY 14, 2020 TIME: 11:00 A.M. DEPT.: 1 The Hon. Kenneth R. Freeman, Dept. 310 Action Filed: January 8, 2015 Trial Date: None Set
I, Eric Y. Kizirian, declare as follows:
1. I am an attorney duly admitted to practice in all of the courts of the State of
California and I am a partner with Lewis Brisbois Bisgaard & Smith LLP, attorneys of record for
AMERICAN HONDA MOTOR CO., INC. herein. The facts set forth herein are of my own
personal knowledge, and if sworn I could and would competently testify thereto.
2. On April 20, 2020, the Parties submitted a request to the Court, by way of a posting
on CaseAnywhere, for an order that approves the dissemination of a Supplemental Postcard
E-Served: Jun 26 2020 2:37PM PDT Via Case Anywhere
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
4820-0773-4465.1 2 Case No. BC606392
DECLARATION OF ERIC Y. KIZIRIAN IN SUPPORT OF FINAL APPROVAL OF CLASS SETTLEMENT
LEWIS BRISBOIS BISGAARD & SMITH LLP ATTORNEYS AT LAW
Notice. The April 20, 2020 posting states in its entirety, as follows:
To the Honorable Court: The parties in the above-referenced Kojikian v. American Honda Motor Co., Inc. action respectfully seek Court approval to send out a supplemental class notice. As set forth in the stipulation and proposed order (separately served via Case Anywhere designating the Court as a recipient), this notice is necessary to (1) inform the class that additional information about the oil consumption testing procedures under the warranty extension offered through the settlement is posted on the settlement website, and (2) correct an error in the “Powertrain Warranty Gap Period” definition in the original class notice. The parties further request that to accommodate the supplemental class notice, and in light of the COVID-19 pandemic, the May 28, 2020 final approval hearing date be continued by 45 days (to early July 2020) and the opt out and comment deadline be extended to a date 21 days after the mailing of the supplemental class notice.
The parties are available for a call with the Court if the Court deems it necessary.
3. The Court responded to the Parties’ joint request for an order the same day
(4/20/2020), as follows:
Unfortunately, I cannot sign the order. The PJ’s General Order is quite explicit that only emergency matters can be heard. But nothing prevents your stipulation to be the authority to send out the notice. You will be getting notice that the hearing is being continued to July 14. My courtroom will not reopen until June 22. We are in the process of ordering the continuances of many matters, including yours. Stay safe and healthy.
4. Exhibit A to this declaration is a true and correct copy of the parties’ Stipulation re
Dissemination of the Supplemental Postcard Notice which was sent to the Court via
CaseAnywhere on April 20, 2020.
I declare under penalty of perjury under the laws of the State of California that the
foregoing is true and correct and that this declaration was executed on this 26th day of June, 2020,
at Los Angeles, California.
Eric Y. Kizirian
EXHIBIT A
E-Served: Apr 20 2020 4:09PM PDT Via Case Anywhere
EXHIBIT A
February 2019
Warranty Extension: Engine Oil Consumption Exceeds Client Expectations
VIN: <VIN>
Dear <First Name/Last Name>:
On certain 2009–14 Acura vehicles equipped with the 3.7L V6 engine, the oil control rings may become clogged with carbon deposits during normal engine operation. These deposits restrict the control ring’s ability to return oilfrom the cylinder walls to the crankcase, resulting in excessive engine oil consumption.
Acura is extending the power-train warranty coverage to cover engine issues related to excessive oil consumptionfrom the original coverage of 6 years/70,000 miles to 8 years/125,000 miles, whichever comes first. To furtherensure client satisfaction and confidence, any affected vehicles from now until September 1, 2019 will be coveredregardless of time in service or mileage.
What should you do?
If you are experiencing any excessive engine oil consumption, contact any authorized Acura dealer for anappointment to have your vehicle inspected. Acura will do an engine oil consumption test. If the dealer determinesthere is excessive oil consumption, the dealer will repair your vehicle free of charge. Please plan to leave yourvehicle 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 atwww.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, 2010–13ZDX 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 AmericanHonda’s Customer Support & Campaign Center at 1-888-234-2138. U.S. clients can also locate a dealer online atwww.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 DIVISIONAmerican Honda Motor Co., Inc.
1919 Torrance Blvd. – P.O. Box 2215Torrance, CA 90509-9870
Febrero del 2019
Extensión de garantía: El consumo de aceite del motor excede las expectativas del cliente
VIN: <VIN>
Estimado <First Name/Last Name>:
En ciertos vehículos Acura 2009–2014 equipados con un motor V6 3.7L, los anillos de control de aceite pudierantaparse con los depósitos de carbón durante el funcionamiento normal del motor. Estos depósitos restringen lahabilidad de los anillos de control de regresar el aceite de las paredes de los cilindros al cárter, ocasionandoconsumo excesivo de aceite del motor.
Acura está extendiendo la cobertura de la garantía del tren de potencia para cubrir los problemas del motorrelacionados con el consumo excesivo de aceite del motor de la fecha original de compra de 6 años/70.000 millas a 8 años/125.000 millas, lo que ocurra primero. Para garantizar la satisfacción del cliente y la confianza, cualquiervehículo afectado desde este momento hasta el 1 de septiembre del 2019 será cubierto sin importar el tiempo enservicio o millas.
¿Qué debe hacer?Si usted está experimentando consumo excesivo de aceite del motor, comuníquese con cualquier concesionarioAcura autorizado para coordinar una cita para la inspección de su vehículo. Acura realizará una prueba deconsumo de aceite del motor. Si el concesionario determina que existe consumo de aceite excesivo, elconcesionario reparará su vehículo sin costo alguno. Por favor haga planes para dejar su vehículo en elconcesionario por lo menos medio día, para permitir flexibilidad en la programación.
Verifique si su vehículo tiene una campaña de seguridad pendientePara verificar la elegibilidad de su vehículo por campañas de seguridad potenciales, por favor acceda laherramienta de búsqueda “Acura Recall Lookup” en www.myAcura.com e ingrese su número de identificación del vehículo (VIN).
Información para el arrendadorPor favor envié una copia de esta notificación al arrendatario.
Qué debe hacer si considera que esta notificación es erróneaNuestros 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 lainformación de nombre/dirección no está correcta, por favor llene y devuelva la Tarjeta de Cambio de Informaciónanexa con el porte pagado. Con esto actualizaremos nuestros registros.
Si tiene preguntasSi tiene preguntas acerca de esta notificación o si necesita asistencia para ponerse en contacto con unconcesionario 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
AUTOMOBILE DIVISIONAmerican Honda Motor Co., Inc.
1919 Torrance Blvd. – P.O. Box 2215Torrance, CA 90509-9870
EXHIBIT B
SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA
COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES
The Superior Court of the State of California, County of Los Angeles, authorized this notice. This is not a solicitation from a lawyer.
In February 2020, you received a Class Notice relating to a proposed “oil consumption” Class Action Settlement (“Settlement”) in Kojikian v. American Honda Motor Co., Inc., Los Angeles Superior Court Case No. BC606392 (the “Action”). This is a supplemental notice on matters stated in the Class Notice. Please note that:
1) The Final Approval Hearing date for the Settlement is continued from May 28, 2020 to ______, 2020.
2) The deadline to opt out or comment on the Settlement is extended to _____, 2020.
3) Additional information about oil consumption testing procedures under the warranty extension is now posted on the settlement website: wwww.acuraoilconsumptionsettlement.com.
4) The definition of “Powertrain Warranty Gap Period” in the Class Notice is incorrect. In February 2019, Acura implemented the warranty extension under the Settlement and sent a warranty extension notice to all registered owners stating it had implemented the warranty extension, including the Powertrain Warranty Gap Period, effective February 2019. Thus, the Powertrain Warranty Gap Period under the Settlement is the six (6) month period following the original warranty extension notification sent in February 2019.
For further information, please visit the settlement website: www.acuraoilconsumptionsettlement.com.
EXHIBIT C
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
4812-1396-1664.1 BC606392SUPPLEMENTAL DECLARATION OF JULIE M. KIM
LEWIS BRISBOIS BISGAARD & SMITH LLP ERIC Y. KIZIRIAN, SB# 210584 E-Mail: [email protected] ZOURIK ZARIFIAN, SB# 306368 E-MAIL: [email protected] 633 West 5th Street, Suite 4000 Los Angeles, California 90071 Tel.: 213.250.1800 Fax: 213.250.7900 Attorneys for Defendant, American Honda Motor Co., Inc.
SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA
COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES, CENTRAL DISTRICT
ARMEN G. KOJIKIAN, as an individual, on behalf of himself, all others similarly situated, and the general public, TIME TRADERS, INC., as a California Corporation, on behalf of itself, all others similarly situated, and the general public,
Plaintiffs,
vs. AMERICAN HONDA MOTOR CO., INC., a California Corporation; and DOES 1 THROUGH 100, inclusive,
Defendant.
Case No. BC606392 SUPPLEMENTAL DECLARATION OF JULIE M. KIM Hon. Daniel J. Buckley, Dept. 1 Action Filed: January 8, 2015 Trial Date: None Set
E-Served: Jun 26 2020 2:37PM PDT Via Case Anywhere
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
4812-1396-1664.1 BC606392SUPPLEMENTAL DECLARATION OF JULIE M. KIM
DECLARATION OF JULIE M. KIM
I, Julie M. Kim, hereby declare and state as follows:
1. I am a California resident and am over the age of 18. I am the Assistant Manager of
Customer Support and Campaign Center of American Honda Motor Co., Inc. (“AHM”). The
Customer Support and Campaign Center for AHM is located in Chino, California and is responsible
for (1) handling campaign notices, and (2) providing claims administration services in cases where
AHM has been approved to self-administer settlements. Each of the facts stated herein are
personally known to me. If called upon to testify, I could and would competently testify to these
facts.
2. As stated in my original declaration, AHM mailed the Court-approved Class Notice,
by First Class Mail, on February 14, 2020 to 429,191 current and former owners and lessees of the
Class Vehicles. A true and correct copy of the original Class Notice that AHM mailed to Class
Members is attached hereto as Exhibit D.
3. As of March 18, 2020, AHM had received 23,518 undeliverable Class Notices out
of the 429,191 that were mailed (approximate 5.5% return rate). Of the 23,518 undeliverable Class
Notices, AHM was able to obtain updated addresses for 1,648 notices. These notices were re-mailed
to these updated addresses on May 22, 2020.
4. On May 15, 2020, AHM sent a Supplemental Postcard Notice by First Class Mail to
affected owners/lessees of the Class Vehicles. A true and correct copy of the Supplemental Postcard
Notice that AHM mailed on May 15, 2020 is attached hereto as Exhibit E.
5. As set forth in my prior declaration, as of the original April 30, 2020 opt-out and
settlement objection deadline, AHM had received 101 total opt out requests and 7 total settlement
objections. Following the dissemination of the Supplemental Postcard Notice, AHM received 19
additional opt out requests and 10 additional settlement objections, and one “supplement” to a prior
objection. In addition, James Copenhaver, who originally objected to the settlement, withdrew his
objection. Thus, there are now 16 total settlement objectors. Exhibit F to this declaration is a true
and correct copy of the updated opt out list, Exhibit G to this declaration are true and correct copies
of the 8 additional objections and one “supplemental” objection received by AHM, and Exhibit H
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
4812-1396-1664.1 2 BC606392DECLARATION OF JULIE KIM RE: DISSEMINATION OF CLASS NOTICE AND CLAIMS ADMINISTRATION
is a true and correct copy of the letter from Mr. Copenhaver withdrawing his original objection.
6. The objections of Jay Almaula and Mariana Staheli, included in Exhibit G attached
to this declaration, state they did not receive Acura’s February 2019 warranty extension notice. As
Assistant Manager of the Customer Support and Campaign Center for AHM, I can obtain the data
with the list of addresses where campaign notices, like the February 2019 warranty extension notice
sent. According to information contained in AHM’s databases, which I reviewed, Mr. Almaula’s
warranty extension notice via first class U.S. Mail in February 2019 to 702 Lois Avenue, Sunnyvale
CA 94087 and Ms. Staheli’s notice was sent in February 2019 to 7081 N. Hollow View Ct., Eagle
Mountain, UT 84005.
7. The deadline to submit Claims for the reimbursement of eligible Out-Of-Pocket
Costs under paragraphs I(34) and III(A) for the Settlement was May 13, 2020. AHM has continued
to collect and log Claim Forms as they are received. The claims period is now closed. As of June
15, 2020, AHM has received a total of 956 Claim Forms. Of these Claims, 905 are missing
information and have been sent notices noting the deficiencies in their claims, 33 claims have been
denied as ineligible under the terms of the Settlement, and 18 Claims have been approved for
payment.
8. As of the date of my original declaration, AHM had received 746 total claim forms.
These claim forms were comprised of (a) 129 claim forms that were missing information (and were
sent cure letters), (b) 600 claims that were not eligible under the terms of the Settlement, and (c) 17
claims that were provisionally approved. My original declaration inadvertently stated that the total
claimed in these forms was $9,748.63—this was actually the total amount for the 17 provisionally
approved claims (not the total claimed in 746 claim forms).
9. As of the Claims Deadline, there are 18 total approved Claims. The vast majority of
the claims are for amounts Class Members co-paid on piston repairs that were largely covered by
AHM under goodwill in the ordinary course of business. In addition, upon further review of the
provisionally approved claims, it was determined that several of the provisionally approved claims
were for amounts AHM had already reimbursed in the ordinary course of business. Thus, the final
accounting for the approved claims is set forth below. The Claims Administrator is still waiting on
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
4812-1396-1664.1 3 BC606392DECLARATION OF JULIE KIM RE: DISSEMINATION OF CLASS NOTICE AND CLAIMS ADMINISTRATION
responses to the cure letters sent to Class Members who had submitted Claims that were incomplete.
VIN (Last 3 digits)
Completion status
Amount as of 4/30 $9,748.63 for 17 claims
Revised Amount $6,183.87 for 18 claims
561 Approve $344.33 $344.33 286 Approve $976.59 $33.30 $943.29 reimbursed on
3/18/19 936 Approve $1,433.03 $0 $1,433.03 reimbursed on
2/28/19 599 Approve $338.24 $325.95 548 Approve $450 $469.74 024 Approve $544.99 $0 Customer already
reimbursed 3/11/19896 Approve $644.15 $0 Customer already
reimbursed 4/12/19681 Approve $250 $265.88 061 Approve $459.30 $0 Customer already
reimbursed 3/22/19837 Approve $500 $500
784 Approve $214.75 $0 Customer already reimbursed 3/18/19
626 Approve $252.28 $268.55
511 Approve $1,778.50 $0 $1778.50 reimbursed 5/6/2019
738 Approve $444.03 $541.96 054 Approve $268.44 $268.44 185 Approve $50 $0 Customer already
reimbursed 3/21/19921 Approve $800.00 $800.00 320 Approve $26.70 $26.70 447 Approve $500.00 $500.00 249 Approve $608.15 $608.15 584 Approve $104.93 $104.93 931 Approve $350.00 $350.00 609 Approve $550.00 $550.00 335 Approve $170.30 $170.30 601 Approve $55.64 $55.64
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
4812-1396-1664.1 4 BC606392DECLARATION OF JULIE KIM RE: DISSEMINATION OF CLASS NOTICE AND CLAIMS ADMINISTRATION
I declare under penalty of perjury under the laws of the State of California that the foregoing
is true and correct. Executed on this June 26, 2020 in Chino, California.
Julie M. Kim
EXHIBIT D
1
SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES
If You Have Ever Owned Or Leased An Acura
MDX (2010-2013), RL (2011-2012), TL (2009-2014), or ZDX (2010-2013)
You May Be Entitled To Benefits Under This Proposed Class Action Settlement.
Please Read This Notice Carefully, As It Affects Your Legal Rights.
The Superior Court of the State of California, County of Los Angeles, authorized this notice. This is not a solicitation from a lawyer.
Para obtener este aviso al grupo afectado en español, visite el sitio web del acuerdo en www.AcuraOilConsumptionSettlement.com
� There is a proposed settlement in a class action lawsuit against American Honda Motor Co., Inc. (“AHM”) that allegescertain Acura MDX (2010-2013), RL (2011-2012), TL (2009-2014) and ZDX (2010-2013) vehicles with the “J37”engine (the “Class Vehicles”) exhibit or may exhibit “excessive oil consumption.”
� The proposed settlement resolves claims based on excessive oil consumption against AHM, the distributor of thesevehicles, and AHM’s parent, subsidiaries, affiliates, and related entities.
� You are covered by the settlement if you own or lease a Class Vehicle, or previously owned or leased a Class Vehicle.The proposed settlement provides for, among other things, a warranty extension (as detailed herein) and reimbursementof certain out-of-pocket costs.
� AHM’s records show you own or lease, or have previously owned or leased, a Class Vehicle. As a result, you havelegal rights and options under the proposed settlement, and there are deadlines for exercising those rights and options,as set forth in this notice. Please review this notice carefully and check the settlement website for important deadlines.
YOUR LEGAL RIGHTS AND OPTIONS IN THIS SETTLEMENT
PARTICIPATE IN THE SETTLEMENT
If you agree with the proposed settlement, you need not do anything to remain in the class. To receive certain benefits, however, you must file a claim as detailed herein.
EXCLUDE YOURSELF You will not be entitled to participate in the settlement and will not receive certain settlement benefits.
OBJECT / COMMENT
Write to the Claims Administrator and explain why you do, or do not, like the settlement. You must remain in the class to comment in support of, or in opposition to, the settlement. If the Court approves the settlement and overrules your objection, you will be bound by the settlement’s terms. You may also, but are not required to, attend the Final Approval Hearing to object to or comment on the settlement.
2
1. WHAT IS THIS LAWSUIT ABOUT?
Plaintiffs Armen Kojikian and Time Traders, Inc. filed this lawsuit in January 2016. The name of the lawsuit is Kojikian v. American Honda Motor Co., Inc. (Case No. BC606392). The lawsuit alleges that Class Vehicles may exhibit “excessive oil consumption,” which is caused by an alleged defect in the Class Vehicles’ engines. The lawsuit does not seek money for any personal injury claims. Instead, Plaintiffs claim they lost money as a result of buying or leasing a car with a claimed defect that causes excessive oil consumption.
Plaintiffs assert claims for violations of California consumer protection laws (Cal. Civ. Code section 1750 et seq.; Cal. Bus. & Prof. Code section 17200 et seq.) and for breach of express and implied warranty under state and federal law. You can read the First Amended Class Action Complaint for Damages and Equitable Relief by visiting the settlement website, www.AcuraOilConsumptionSettlement.com.
AHM denies that it violated any law, denies liability, denies that it engaged in any wrongdoing with respect to the manufacture, distribution, or sale of the Class Vehicles, and denies the Class Vehicles are defective or any claimed excessive oil consumption is caused by a defect in the Class Vehicles. The parties agreed to resolve the case before these liability issues were decided by the Court.
2. WHY DID I GET THIS NOTICE?
Records show you may be a member of the class because you presently own or lease, or previously owned or leased, a Class Vehicle. This notice is designed to inform members of the class of the pendency of this litigation and of the proposed settlement, and to describe your rights and options if you are a member of the class.
3. WHO IS A CLASS MEMBER?
The Superior Court of the State of California, County of Los Angeles, has conditionally certified a “Settlement Class” that includes all residents of the United States, Puerto Rico, and all U.S. territories who currently own or lease, or who previously owned or leased, a Class Vehicle.
The Settlement Class excludes:
1) AHM, its related entities, parent companies, subsidiaries and affiliates, and their respective officers,directors, and employees;
2) insurers of the Class Vehicles;3) all persons and/or entities claiming to be subrogated to the rights of Class Members;4) issuers or providers of extended vehicle warranties or extended service contracts;5) individuals and/or entities who validly and timely opt-out of the Settlement;6) individuals or businesses that have purchased Class Vehicles previously deemed a total loss (i.e. salvage)
(subject to verification through Carfax or other means);7) current and former owners of a Class Vehicle who previously have released their claims against AHM
with respect to the issues raised in the Litigation;8) United States, Puerto Rico, and U.S. territory residents who have purchased Class Vehicles in the United
States but have since transported the vehicle outside the United States for permanent use abroad; and9) any judge to whom this matter is assigned, and his or her immediate family (spouse, domestic partner, or
children).
3
4. WHY DID I GET THIS NOTICE?
To represent the Settlement Class, the Court has appointed The Margarian Law Firm (www.margarianlaw.com) to act as Class Counsel. You will not be charged for contacting this law firm.
The Margarian Law Firm 801 N. Brand Blvd., Suite 210 Glendale, CA 91203 (818) 553-1000 [email protected]
5. WHAT BENEFITS DOES THE SETTLEMENT PROVIDE?
Refer to the complete Amended Class Action Settlement Agreement and Release for a full description of all settlement terms and conditions. You can review the Class Action Settlement and Release in its entirety at the settlement website (www.AcuraOilConsumptionSettlement.com). The following is a summary of the benefits set forth in the settlement.
(a) Reimbursement for Out-of-Pocket Costs: AHM will reimburse you for valid and eligible “Out-of-Pocket Costs” incurred prior to the date of this notice.
• An “Out-Of-Pocket Cost” is money you paid for an Eligible Repair and that was not otherwise reimbursedby insurance, warranty or goodwill.
• An “Eligible Repair” is a “Piston Repair” (a repair or replacement of the “Piston” and/or “Piston Ring”in a Class Vehicle due to an excessive oil consumption complaint) during the “Powertrain WarrantyPeriod” performed (a) by an Authorized Acura Dealership, or (b) an independent third party repair facilityif said third party performed a Piston Repair before the date of this Notice.
• The “Powertrain Warranty Period” is the 8 year/125,000 miles (whichever occurs first) period from thedate of the original sale or lease of the Class Vehicle.
• The “Powertrain Warranty Gap Period” means the six (6) month period after the Effective Date of ClassSettlement and applies only to Class Vehicles that (1) are outside the Powertrain Warranty Period as of theEffective Date of Class Settlement, and (2) do not have prior Eligible Repairs for which a Claim can bemade.
To get reimbursed for an Out-Of-Pocket cost, you must submit (i.e., transmit via U.S. mail or fax) a claim form and required documentation (which includes proof of the incurred expenses) before the claims deadline. Please visit the settlement website for a blank claim form, a listing of documents required to make a claim, and any updates to the claim deadline (under the Class Action Settlement Agreement and Release, the deadline to submit a claim for an Out-Of-Pocket Cost is seventy-five (75) days after the mailing of this Class Notice). Currently, the deadline to submit a claim is May 13, 2020.
(b) Warranty Extension: AHM will cover under warranty the costs for a Piston Repair related to a confirmed excessive oil consumption complaint during the Powertrain Warranty Period or, if applicable, during the Powertrain Warranty Gap Period. This warranty extension goes into effect as of the date of this notice.
Class Vehicles will receive a Piston Repair under the warranty extension for a confirmed excessive oil consumption complaint provided (1) there is no evidence of abuse, misuse, or accident damage to the Piston or Piston Ring, and (2) the Class Vehicle is presented to an Authorized Acura Dealership during the Powertrain Warranty Period, or, if applicable, during the Powertrain Warranty Gap Period. Please note, Piston Repairs performed by third party repair faculties after the date of this notice are not covered by warranty and will not be paid or otherwise covered by AHM.
4
If you obtain a Piston Repair under this warranty extension before the settlement receives final approval from the Court, you are precluded from opting out of the settlement even if an otherwise valid and timely opt-out notice is sent to the Claims Administrator.
This warranty extension will 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 state’s law.
The Warranty Extension will be honored prior to the Court’s approval of this settlement. If you accept a free repair under this Warranty before Final Approval of the settlement, you will be bound by the release in this settlement even if you “opt out” of the settlement.
6. WHO PAYS CLASS COUNSEL’S FEES AND EXPENSES?
To date, Class Counsel has not been paid for time spent prosecuting the case and has not been reimbursed for any out-of-pocket costs. If the Court approves the proposed settlement, Class Counsel will apply to the Court for an award of attorneys’ fees and reimbursement for costs not to exceed $644,750.00. Class Counsel also will apply to the Court for a service award of $5,000 combined to the Class Representatives, Armen Kojikian and Time Traders, Inc., for their initiative and effort in pursuing this litigation for the benefit of the class. Any award of attorneys’ fees and expenses and any service award will be paid by AHM separately and will not reduce the benefits available to you under the settlement. You are not personally liable for these attorneys’ fees and costs or the service award.
7. WHAT HAPPENS IF THE COURT APPROVES THE SETTLEMENT?
If you fall within the class definition and elect to remain in the class, and the settlement is approved, the Court will enter a judgment dismissing the lawsuit with prejudice, and releasing any and all claims that you may have against AHM, its parent, subsidiaries, affiliates and related entities and all of its past and present directors, officers, employees, partners, principals, agents, and each of their predecessors, successors, parents, subsidiaries, divisions, joint ventures, attorneys, insurers, reinsurers, assigns, related or affiliated entities, Authorized Acura Dealerships, distributors, suppliers, and any members of their immediate families, and any trust for which any of them are trustees, settlers, or beneficiaries, from any and all claims or causes of action, including unknown claims, under the laws of any jurisdiction, including federal law, state law, and common law, whether at law or equity that arise out of, relate to, or in any way concern the Class Vehicles’ Pistons, Piston Rings, or oil consumption in the Class Vehicles.
8. WHAT ARE MY OPTIONS NOW THAT I’VE RECEIVED THIS NOTICE?
If you are a member of the class, you have the following options:
(a) PARTICIPATE IN THE SETTLEMENT: If you agree with the proposed settlement, you need not do anything to remain in the class. If you have Out-of-Pocket Costs that are eligible for reimbursement, you are required to submit a timely Claim for reimbursement along with supporting documentation, or comply with other deadlines as set forth herein and in the Class Action Settlement Agreement and Release. For information on the status of settlement approval and other settlement related information, please visit the settlement website at www.AcuraOilConsumptionSettlement.com.
(b) REQUEST TO BE EXCLUDED: If you do not want to stay in the class, then you must send a written notice of your request to exclude yourself from the class, postmarked no later than April 13, 2020 to the Claims Administrator at the following address:
Claims Settlement Administrator P.O. Box 2718 Torrance, CA 90509
5
Your request must be signed by you, include your name, and specifically state that you request to be excluded from the class in Kojikian v. American Honda Motor Co., Inc. If you validly and timely request exclusion from the class, (1) you will be excluded from the class; (2) you will not be entitled to the settlement benefits; (3) you will not be bound by the terms of the settlement, the judgment dismissing the lawsuit, or the release of claims provided by the settlement; and (4) you will not be entitled to object to the proposed settlement or be heard at the fairness hearing described below. If you do not exclude yourself, you will be bound by any judgment entered in the case, whether favorable or unfavorable, and will be bound by the release in the Settlement agreement. Please note, however, that if you obtain a Piston Repair under the warranty extension before the settlement receives final approval from the Court, you are precluded from opting out of the settlement even if an otherwise valid and timely opt-out notice is sent to the Claims Administrator.
(c) OBJECT TO THE SETTLEMENT: If you are a member of the class and you do not request to be excluded, you may object to the terms of the settlement or to Class Counsel’s request for attorneys’ fees and costs. You can ask the Court to deny approval by filing an objection. You cannot ask the Court to order a larger settlement; the Court can only approve or deny the settlement. If the Court does not approve the settlement, no settlement payments will be sent out and the lawsuit will continue. If that is what you want to happen, you must object. You may, but need not, enter an appearance through counsel of your choice, but you will be responsible for paying your own attorney.
If you object to the settlement, your objection must be mailed (post-marked) on or before April 13, 2020.
The objection must be mailed to the Claims Administrator at this address:
Claims Settlement Administrator P.O. Box 2718 Torrance, CA 90509
The written objection must include (i) a reference to Kojikian v. American Honda Motor Co., Inc., Case No. BC606392; (ii) your full name, current address, and current telephone number; (iii) the year, model, and vehicle identification number (VIN) of the Class Vehicle that you own or lease or previously owned or leased; (iv) copies of any papers, briefs, or other documents upon which the objection is based; (v) a list of all persons who will be called to testify in support of the objection (if any); (vi) a statement whether you intend to appear at the fairness hearing; (vii) a statement of the position(s) you wish to assert, including the factual and legal grounds for the position; and (viii) your signature or if you are represented by counsel, your counsel’s signature. You may but are not required to personally appear at the final approval hearing for your objection to be considered by the Court.
Please note that by objecting, you will remain a member of the class and will have released your claims as set forth herein.
9. WHEN IS THE FINAL APPROVAL HEARING?
On May 28, 2020 (10:30 a.m. Pacific), in Department 1 of the Superior Court of the State of California, County of Los Angeles, the Honorable Daniel J. Buckley, Superior Court Judge, will hold a fairness hearing for the purpose of deciding (a) whether the settlement should be approved as fair, reasonable, and adequate for the class; (b) whether a judgment granting approval of the settlement and dismissing the lawsuit with prejudice should be entered; and (c) whether Class Counsel’s application for attorneys’ fees and expenses and incentive award for the named Plaintiffs should be granted. The hearing may be postponed, adjourned, or rescheduled by the Court without further notice to the class. You do not need to attend this hearing to remain a member of the class or participate in the settlement.
6
10. WHERE CAN I REVIEW SETTLEMENT DOCUMENTS AND OTHER INFORMATION ON THE SETTLEMENT?
This notice summarizes the proposed settlement. For full details of the matters discussed in this notice, you may wish to review the Amended Class Action Settlement Agreement and Release dated September 2019, a copy of the complaint, and other settlement related documents, on file with the Court, and also available at the dedicated website of www.AcuraOilConsumptionSettlement.com, or by contacting class counsel, Hovanes Margarian ([email protected]; 818.553.1000), the Margarian Law Firm, 801 N. Brand Blvd, Suite 210, Glendale, CA 91203.
PLEASE DO NOT TELEPHONE THE COURT OR THE COURT CLERK’S OFFICE TO INQUIRE ABOUT THIS NOTICE, THE SETTLEMENT OR THE CLAIM PROCESS.
BY ORDER OF THE COURT
EXHIBIT E
Oil Dilution Claims Settlement Administrator P.O. Box 2718 Torrance, CA 90509
<Postal IMB Barcode> <Consumer Name> <Street Address/Unit #> <City, State,Zip>
PRESORTED RST SS
S POST E P D S T PER T O
SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES
This Supplemental Notice relates to the Kojikian v. American Honda Motor Co., Inc. Class Action. This is not a solicitation from a lawyer.
In February 2020, you received a Class Notice relating to a proposed “oil consumption” Class Action Settlement (“Settlement”) in Kojikian v. American Honda Motor Co., Inc., Los Angeles Superior Court Case No. BC606392. This is a supplemental notice with additional information on that Settlement. Please note that:
1 The Final Approval Hearing date for the Settlement was continued from May 28, 2020 to July 14, 2020, at 11:00 a.m. Please see the Settlement Website for further updates.
2 The deadline to opt out or comment on the Settlement is extended to June 5, 2020.
Additional information about oil consumption testing procedures under the warranty extension has been posted on the settlement website: www.acuraoilconsumptionsettlement.com.
The definition of “Powertrain Warranty Gap Period” in the Class Notice is incorrect. In February 2019, Acura implemented the warranty extension under the Settlement and sent a warranty extension notice to all registered owners stating it had implemented the warranty extension, including the Powertrain Warranty Gap Period, effective February 2019. Thus, the Powertrain Warranty Gap Period under the Settlement is the six (6) month period following the original warranty extension notification Acura sent in February 2019.
For further information, please visit the settlement website: www.acuraoilconsumptionsettlement.com.
EXHIBIT F
First Name Last Name State
Column3 Column4 Column7Allan Mira PACharles Penrod OK Dean Nolan NCElaine Oertley ILHoward Cole NVJames Tausz CAJames Vance MSJanessa Grant FLJavier Flores MANancy Jezisek MIPeter Pfeiffer NYSidney Wagner SDWallace Krumm SDConnie Cavette ARConnie Mork ILJenine Goehrich OHJoan Thomas DEJoseph Blice Jr. PAKathleen Donnelly TXLarry Lowery KYBary Kahn NYDaniel McDonald WAFaye Maness Onley NCRichard Swanson CAJames Sawyer SCGwendolyn Reisman NCKristin Askin Hutto GAKurt Kefgen SDMohammad Al-Sheikhly ORPhillip Oneal VA
Kojikian Opt-Out Tracker
Vincent Lipari NJWally Hamilton IDBarbara Billich ORJayne Metzger NYTammy McNew PAEugene Johnson OHRobert Tyng IDCynthia Haddock-Jones WAHenry Oheim Jr. MAIliana Recalde FLLeonore Barber PARobert Blaser NEBrad Crotteau CAGladys Tanaka HIMark Niyazov NYMary Kaye Hamilton LAAngelo Messina CTJoanne Reichbach NYTim Wooldridge MOTom Bonetto CAMaria Perez-Pozo ILMark Jurgensen PAMichael Conrad FLBrian Wintferling CODiana Ellis TXMark Hannah INRicki Bulacan HISarah Messenger WAKimberly Myers MDKathleen Ullom ORMargaret Hayes ORPhillip Hisey-Gauthier FLWilliam Lawler Jr RIMarla Broadnax CAKathy Cauley CASusanna Hayrapetyan CAMoises Preciado CA
Jeffrey Tudor CAIraj Motabar CAAlexander Cabrera CA Lenci Ordaz CALaurel Tudor CARaymond Broadnax CAColin Cauley CADouglas Cabrera CAArman Danielyan CASheila Zieglowsky AZMauricio Vicente PA Nancy Tucker NEHoward Polonetsky NJ
Gilda DeLaTorre CAClifford and Carla Royalty MDSalil Bavdekar CAVicki Behm MNAshley Eischeid CARuoyuan Yin CAYinhong Chen CAHan Yin CAIsrael Bocanegra CARebeca Bocanegra CAStephen Seetal CAAngelle Hill-Seetal CAJim Wright FL
Richard and Alan Zeitlin CANathan Whitlow FLLaura Haug CATroy Waddington GATara Newman CAWindy Dobbins SCDaniel Karolyi VALuis Cesar Sangueado Chavez WA
Bria Magnuson Joerger MNDana Anderson ILDeborah Russo MARandy Payne GARobert McMaster OHSameer Sarfraz NJLydia Lee CAMelissa Kharitou WI
Sokha Thach CASteven Hirth NYEric J Panizza PAJare A Allen FLCarmen D Campbell MDJessica R Curtis GATodd Kirschner NCFrances Estrada NJHelicia Borisoff FLBarbara L Richards FLOliver Karnes MD
EXHIBIT G
EXHIBIT H
PROOF OF SERVICE
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
THE MARGARIAN LAW FIRM HOVANES MARGARIAN (SBN: 246359)
SHUSHANIK MARGARIAN (SBN: 318617)
801 N. Brand Blvd., Suite 210
Glendale, CA 91203
Telephone: (818) 553-1000
Facsimile: (818) 553-1005
Attorneys for Plaintiffs,
ARMEN G. KOJIKIAN
TIME TRADERS, INC.
SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA
FOR THE COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES, CENTRAL DISTRICT
ARMEN G. KOJIKIAN, as an individual, on
behalf of himself, all others similarly situated,
and the general public; TIME TRADERS,
INC., a California corporation, on behalf of
itself, all others similarly situated, and the
general public
Plaintiffs,
vs.
AMERICAN HONDA MOTOR CO., INC., a
California corporation; and DOES 1 through
100, inclusive,
Defendants.
) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) )
Case No.: BC606392
Class Action
Hon. Daniel J. Buckley
PROOF OF SERVICE
E-Served: Jun 26 2020 2:37PM PDT Via Case Anywhere
