Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-3_12-cv-05493/USCOURTS-cand-3_12-cv-05493-21/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 385
Nature of Suit: Property Damage - Product Liability
Cause of Action: 28:1332 Diversity-Property Damage

---

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

Case No. 12-CV-05493 (TEH)

[PROPOSED] ORDER GRANTING FINAL APPROVAL OF CLASS ACTION SETTLEMENT

Roy A. Katriel (265463) 

THE KATRIEL LAW FIRM 

4225 Executive Square, Suite 600 

La Jolla, CA 92037 

Tel: (858) 242-5642 

Fax: (858) 430-3719 

E-mail: rak@katriellaw.com

Gary S. Graifman, Esq. (pro hac vice) 

KANTROWITZ, GOLDHAMER & GRAIFMAN, P.C. 

210 Summit Avenue 

Montvale, NJ 07645 

Tel: (201) 391-7000 

Fax: (201) 307-1086 

E-mail: ggraifman@kgglaw.com

Counsel for Plaintiffs 

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 

SAN FRANCISCO DIVISION 

MAJEED SEIFI, TRACEY DEAKIN, and 

RAYMOND REYNER, On Behalf of 

Themselves and All Others Similarly Situated,

Plaintiffs,

v.

MERCEDES-BENZ USA, LLC,

Defendant.

Case No. 12-CV-05493 (TEH)

[PROPOSED] ORDER GRANTING FINAL

APPROVAL OF CLASS ACTION

SETTLEMENT AND CERTIFICATION

OF SETTLEMENT CLASS

Hon. Thelton E. Henderson

Courtroom: 2, 17th Floor

Hearing Date: August 17, 2015

Hearing Time: 10:00 am

Case 3:12-cv-05493-TEH Document 207 Filed 08/18/15 Page 1 of 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

Case No. 12-CV-05493 (TEH)

[PROPOSED] ORDER GRANTING FINAL APPROVAL OF CLASS ACTION SETTLEMENT

Plaintiffs’ Motion for Final Approval of Class Action Settlement was heard by the Court 

on August 17, 2015, at 10:00 a.m. Appearances were noted for the record. The Court has 

reviewed the materials submitted by the parties and has heard arguments presented at the hearing. 

For the reasons cited on the record as well as those stated hereinafter, the Court finds and orders as 

follows: 

The Court, having considered the documents filed by the Parties in connection with the 

class action settlement and the arguments of counsel, hereby grants final approval of the 

Settlement and HEREBY ORDERS AND MAKES THE FOLLOWING DETERMINATIONS: 

1. The Settlement Agreement is incorporated herein by reference, and except as 

otherwise specified, the Court for purposes of this Final Approval Order adopts all defined terms 

set forth in the Settlement Agreement. 

2. This Court has jurisdiction over the subject matter of this litigation and all claims 

raised in this action and released in the Settlement Agreement, and personal jurisdiction over 

Plaintiffs, MBUSA and all Settlement Class Members. 

3. Pursuant to this Court’s Preliminary Approval Order filed April 8, 2015, Dkt. 149, 

the Notice of Pendency and Proposed Settlement of Class Action (“Notice”) was mailed by firstclass mail on May 13, 2015, to 579,578 Class Members. Notices that were initially returned 

undeliverable were re-mailed to new addresses determined after investigation. The Notices 

advised the Class Members of the pertinent terms of the proposed settlement, namely, the claims 

to be resolved by way of the settlement, the consideration for past claims and extended warranty 

for future claims, the proposed class representative incentive awards and the maximum amount for 

attorney’s fees and litigation costs. It further informed the Settlement Class Members of the 

manner in which to request exclusion or to object to the Settlement, the deadlines for each, and 

their right to appear in person or by counsel at the final approval hearing. A second deadline for 

exclusion and objections was provided in the remail notices to allow those who did not initially 

receive the Notice additional time to consider the Settlement. Adequate periods of time were 

provided for each of these procedures as set forth in the Settlement Agreement approved by this 

Case 3:12-cv-05493-TEH Document 207 Filed 08/18/15 Page 2 of 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

-2- Case No. 12-CV-05493 (TEH)

[PROPOSED] ORDER GRANTING FINAL APPROVAL OF CLASS ACTION SETTLEMENT

Court. 

4. Also in compliance with the Court’s Preliminary Approval Order, the Settlement 

Administrator caused an informational settlement website to be established at 

www.BalanceShaftSettlement.com on May 13, 2015. The website allows the public opportunity 

to review the Settlement Agreement, the Court’s Preliminary Order, the Notice, and to validate 

whether they have a vehicle within the class of vehicles at issue, and to download a Claim Form. 

The website also provides background and answers to common questions about the Settlement, 

deadlines, and ongoing updates to the class regarding the status of Settlement approval and 

whether the Effective Date has come to pass. 

5. The Court finds and determines that this notice procedure afforded adequate 

protections to Settlement Class Members and provides the basis for the Court to make an informed 

decision regarding approval of the Settlement based on the responses of the Settlement Class 

Members. The Court finds and determines that the notice provided in this case was the best notice 

practicable, which satisfied the requirements of law and due process. 

6. As of the date of this hearing, there were 19 objections filed with the Court 

(counting as one objection, the original filed and then refiled objection of Mr. Fanciullo at Dkts. 

164 and 183), as well as 17 19 letters filed with the Court that did not comply with the objection 

requirements or assert specific substantive grounds for objection. See Dkts. 152, 153, 154, 156, 

157, 158, 159, 162, 170, 175, 177, 180, 181, 188, 190, 193, and 194, and 204. To the extent any 

of these letters could be construed as an objection, they are overruled. 

7. After consideration of each of the objections, as well as the various letters filed 

with the Court, the Objections are overruled. 

8. Many objectors argued for more consideration or additional time in the extended 

warranty in one form or another. But “[s]ettlement is the offspring of compromise; the question 

we address is not whether the final product could be prettier, smarter or snazzier, but whether it is 

fair, adequate and free from collusion.” Hanlon v. Chrysler Corp., 150 F.3d 1011, 1027 (9th Cir. 

1998). Moreover, the settlement must be evaluated by “[w]eighing the uncertainty of relief 

Case 3:12-cv-05493-TEH Document 207 Filed 08/18/15 Page 3 of 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

-3- Case No. 12-CV-05493 (TEH)

[PROPOSED] ORDER GRANTING FINAL APPROVAL OF CLASS ACTION SETTLEMENT

against the immediate benefit provided in the settlement.” In re Wireless Tel. Fed. Cost Recovery 

Fees Litig., 396 F.3d 922, 933 (8th Cir. 2005). Liability was hotly contested and the Court finds 

the compromise here provides substantial benefits to Settlement Class Members now, instead to 

waiting years to adjudicate claims that are subject to dispute. 

9. The percentage of replacement costs reimbursed or to be paid by MBUSA for 

future repairs was determined by a vigorously-disputed and highly-negotiated schedule according 

to the number of miles driven or the amount of time the subject vehicles have been on the road. In 

negotiations over the portion of the replacement costs to be reimbursed/covered under the 

Settlement, plaintiffs faced real litigation risk from MBUSA’s defenses. Plaintiffs acknowledge 

these challenges (see Dkt. 166 at 3:17-19, 23:2-7), and in light of these risks, the Settlement’s 

reimbursement and extended warranty schedules are reasonable and a fair compromise for the 

Class. The objections of Ford (Dkt. 160), Criswell (Dkt. 151), Davidson (Dkt. 172), Fanciullo 

(Dkts. 164/183), Pawlikowski (Dkt. 176), Askew (Dkt. 184), Dager (Dkt. 163), Nelson (Dkt. 174), 

Caggan (Dkt. 187) and Lindo (Stegeman Decl. Ex. A) are overruled. 

10. “Age and mileage limitations are common in automotive defect cases, and reflect 

manufacturers’ strong arguments that vehicles ordinarily fail after a number of years or miles due 

to wear and tear.” Aarons v. BMW of N. Am., LLC, 2014 WL 4090564, at *12 (C.D. Cal. Apr. 29, 

2014); see also Alin v. Honda Motor Co., 2012 WL 8751045, at *15 (D.N.J. Apr. 13, 2012) (“The 

parties weighed the obligation to cover those damages against the reality that Honda cannot act as 

a perpetual insurer for all compressor breakdowns, and they ultimately settled on a sliding scale 

that ends at eight years and 96,000 miles . . . . It was reasonable to exclude older, more traveled 

vehicles from coverage . . . .”). The Court also finds this Settlement is similar to other approved 

automotive class action settlements, which overruled the same types of objections. See, e.g., 

Milligan v. Toyota Motor Sales, U.S.A., Inc., 2012 WL 10277179 (N.D. Cal. Jan. 6, 2012); Eisen 

v. Porsche Cars N. Am., Inc., 2014 WL 439006 (C.D. Cal. Jan. 30, 2014); In re Nissan Radiator/ 

Transmission Cooler Litig., 2013 WL 4080946 (S.D.N.Y. May 30, 2013); Henderson v. Volvo 

Cars of N. Am., LLC, 2013 WL 1192479 (D.N.J. Mar. 22, 2013). Time/mileage limitations are 

Case 3:12-cv-05493-TEH Document 207 Filed 08/18/15 Page 4 of 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

-4- Case No. 12-CV-05493 (TEH)

[PROPOSED] ORDER GRANTING FINAL APPROVAL OF CLASS ACTION SETTLEMENT

inherent to automotive settlements that are regularly approved by courts, and the limitations here 

represent a compromise that was negotiated at arms’-length through a venerated mediator by 

experienced counsel after extensive discovery and consultation with their experts. The Court 

further finds that the Settlement’s provision of compensation for qualifying past repairs 

sufficiently addresses the objection raised by Ms. Caggan’s counsel at the hearing, and by 

other objecting class members in their letters, that the Settlement’s time and mileage 

limitations will preclude a third of the class from obtaining any recovery. These objections 

fail to recognize the real and substantial benefit that reimbursement for qualifying past 

repairs will provide to class members for whom the time and mileage restrictions would 

otherwise apply. Only class members whose vehicles did not experience the alleged defect 

within the time and mileage restrictions will be prevented from recovering under the 

Settlement, a result which the Court finds to be fair. The objections of Lee (Dkt. 150), 

Davidson (Dkt. 172), Kramer (Dkt. 182), Dager (Dkt. 163), Nelson (Dkt. 174), Dannov (Dkt. 161/ 

Stegeman Decl. Ex. H), Fanciullo (Dkt. 164/183), and Caggan (Dkt. 187), and Boughn 

(Stegeman Decl. Ex. G) are overruled. 

11. The Court does not find Dager’s characterization of the benefits as illusory welltaken and overrules the objection. Dkt. 163. Despite providing more than 8 years and a 

significant number of miles of driving benefits, a recovery of 37.5% the cost of a balance shaft 

replacement “provides significant monetary relief to class members in relation to the value of their 

claims and the risks of this litigation.” See Gascho v. Global Fitness Holdings, LLC, 2014 WL 

1350509, at *21 (S.D. Ohio Apr. 4, 2014). 

12. The Court also finds the $4,000 repair cost cap for repairs that were not made by an 

authorized Mercedes-Benz repair shop, by technicians trained, certified and supported by MBUSA 

to be fair, reasonable, and adequate. For these reasons and because Morales (Dkt. 186) does not 

provide evidence that a non-Mercedes repair facility properly has charged him more, his objection 

is overruled. 

13. There is no basis to believe a recall would be an appropriate remedy in this case. 

Case 3:12-cv-05493-TEH Document 207 Filed 08/18/15 Page 5 of 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

-5- Case No. 12-CV-05493 (TEH)

[PROPOSED] ORDER GRANTING FINAL APPROVAL OF CLASS ACTION SETTLEMENT

Among other things, there is no evidence that the National Highway Transportation Safety 

Administration opened an investigation for a possible recall. It is also questionable whether a 

recall could be ordered by a court as a remedy to a lawsuit, instead of by NHTSA. The Askew 

(Dkt. 184) and Morales (Dkt. 186) objections are overruled. 

14. The diminished value objections (Frates (Dkt. 173), Zmudzin (Dkt. 178), Garland 

(Stegeman Decl. Ex. B) and Brown (Dkt. 185)), are overruled for lack of concrete evidence of a 

claim, and because “[w]hen a settlement is fair, reasonable, and adequate to the class as a whole 

[...] objections that apply only to an individual class member are insufficient to defeat the 

settlement.” American Int’l Grp., Inc. v. ACE INA Holdings, Inc., 2012 WL 651727, at *11 (N.D. 

Ill. Feb. 28, 2012) (“AIG”). “Without doubting the strength of their particular claims, diminution 

in value cases face significant obstacles regarding proof. Here, it was reasonable for the parties to 

focus on enhanced warranty benefits and the provision of monetary compensation for class 

members who could document out-of-pocket repair costs.” Milligan, 2012 WL 10277179, at *7 

(citing Vaughn v. Am. Honda Motor Co., 627 F. Supp. 2d 738, 749 (E.D. Tex. 2007) (“[i]t does 

not make the settlement unfair or unreasonable that the class has to release speculative claims for 

diminution in value”)); see also Eisen, 2014 WL 439006, at *8 (overruling objections relating to 

diminution claims); In re Nissan, 2013 WL 4080946, at *14 (same). The unique and highly 

hypothetical circumstances of these few objectors do not warrant rejection of the substantial 

benefits to hundreds of thousands of class members. Moreover, if these objectors wanted to 

litigate their claims, they had the option to exclude themselves from the Settlement. AIG, 2012 

WL 651727, at *11. 

15. The Court finds it is relatively simple to determine class membership, and the onepage Claim Form is easy to fill out with reasonable requirements for supporting documentation. 

The Notice Plan and claims process comply with due process and the requirements of Rule 23. 

Fanciullo’s objections (Dkts. 164/183) are overruled.

16. The additional claims and causes of action proffered by Foust, Dager, and Nelson 

are subsumed by the claims made by the representative Plaintiffs, and arise from the same nucleus 

Case 3:12-cv-05493-TEH Document 207 Filed 08/18/15 Page 6 of 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

-6- Case No. 12-CV-05493 (TEH)

[PROPOSED] ORDER GRANTING FINAL APPROVAL OF CLASS ACTION SETTLEMENT

of operative facts. See Hanlon, 150 F.3d at 1020 (“[R]epresentative claims are ‘typical’ if they are 

reasonably co-extensive with those of absent class members; they need not be substantially 

identical.”); In re LDK Solar Secs. Litig., 255 F.R.D. 519, 532 (N.D. Cal. 2009). Some of the 

claims these objectors had argued for (e.g., common law fraud or Lemon Law violations) are not 

the proper subject of classwide litigation or classwide relief and hence were appropriately not 

included in this action. The Court finds the representative Plaintiffs adequately represent the 

claims set forth by Foust (Dkt. 192), Dager (Dkt. 163), and Nelson (Dkt. 172), and their objections 

are overruled. 

17. Lindo (Stegeman Decl. Ex. A) and Garland (Stegeman Decl. Ex. B) were never 

filed, and Foust’s objection (Dkt. 192), Boughn’s (Stegeman Decl. Ex. G), and Dannov’s 

second objection (Stegeman Decl. Ex. H) was were untimely. Kelly (Dkt. 189) and Foust (Dkt. 

192) failed to provide complete Vehicle Identification Numbers for their subject vehicles. Askew 

(Dkt. 184), Frates (Dt. 173), and Kelly (Dkt. 189) do not provide dates of ownership for their 

respective vehicles. Askew (Dkt. 184), Caggan (Dkt. 187), Frates (Dkt. 173), Kelly (Dkt. 189) 

and Lee (Dkt. 150) do not include statements that they have read the class definition, they 

understand they are Class Members, and that they have not opted-out. While the Court has 

considered and overruled these objections on the merits above, the objections are separately 

overruled for failing to comply with the requirements set forth in the Preliminary Order and Notice 

of Pendency of Settlement. See Nwabueze v. AT&T Inc., 2013 WL 6199596, at *7 (N.D. Cal. 

Nov. 27, 2013), appeal dismissed (9th Cir. Mar. 19, 2014). 

18. Kelly (Dkt. 189) does not set forth any factual or legal basis for an objection. 

Objectors must raise “cogent factual objections to the settlement.” Weinberger v. Kendrick, 698 F. 

2d 61, 79 (2d Cir. 1982), cert. denied, 464 U.S. 818 (1983). The objection is overruled. 

19. The Court addresses Plaintiffs’ motion for attorneys’ fees, objections thereto, as 

well as Plaintiffs’ request for costs, and the class representative service awards in a separate order. 

20. LaMar (Dkt. 179) does not make cognizable objection, where she sought to avoid 

the cost of a diagnostic testing of her car if it was found she did not need a balance shaft 

Case 3:12-cv-05493-TEH Document 207 Filed 08/18/15 Page 7 of 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

-7- Case No. 12-CV-05493 (TEH)

[PROPOSED] ORDER GRANTING FINAL APPROVAL OF CLASS ACTION SETTLEMENT

replacement. She had warranty coverage for the repair. If she sought diagnosis and did not have 

the alleged defect, she is unclear how she could make a claim for damages. Her objection is 

overruled.

21. The Court finds and determines that the terms of the Settlement are fair, reasonable 

and adequate to the Settlement Class, that the Settlement is ordered finally approved, and that all 

terms and provisions of the Settlement should be and hereby are ordered to be consummated. The 

Court finds that Plaintiffs faced significant risks in litigating this case; but that the Settlement 

provides a fair amount of relief for Settlement Class Members’ federal and state consumer 

protection claims given the strength of those claims. The Court also finds that the Settlement 

Agreement was reached as a result of informed and non-collusive arms’-length negotiations 

through a respected and capable mediator. In addition to the reasons set forth in the Court’s 

statements in the Preliminary Approval Order (Dkt. 149) and above, the fact that only 19 

Settlement Class Members out of nearly 600,000 filed objections, and that very few Settlement 

Class Members opted out, further supports the Court’s finding that the Settlement is fair, 

reasonable, and adequate. 

22. The Parties are hereby ordered to comply with and carry out the terms of the 

Settlement Agreement. 

23. Solely for purposes of effectuating this Settlement, this Court certifies a Settlement 

Class consisting of persons who meet the following criteria: 

All current and former owners and lessees of Mercedes-Benz branded 

automobiles equipped with M272 or M273 engines bearing serial numbers up to 

2729..30 468993 or 2739 ..30 088611, found in the Subject 2005 – 2007 Model 

Year Vehicles respectively (the “Subject Vehicles”), who purchased or leased 

their Subject Vehicles within the United States. 

Excluded from the Settlement Class are: Persons who validly and timely exclude 

themselves; Persons who have settled with, released, or otherwise had claims 

adjudicated on the merits against MBUSA that are substantially similar to those 

alleged in this matter; Persons with only claims relating to personal injury, 

wrongful death or property damage (relating to property other than the Subject 

Vehicles) as a result of the defects alleged; employees of MBUSA; insurers or 

other providers of extended service contracts or warranties for the vehicles owned 

by settlement class members; and the Honorable Thelton E. Henderson and the 

Honorable Jacqueline Scott Corley and members of their respective families. 

Case 3:12-cv-05493-TEH Document 207 Filed 08/18/15 Page 8 of 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

-8- Case No. 12-CV-05493 (TEH)

[PROPOSED] ORDER GRANTING FINAL APPROVAL OF CLASS ACTION SETTLEMENT

24. This class was provisionally certified in the Preliminary Approval Order, Dkt. 149. 

With respect to the Settlement Class and for purposes of approving this Settlement only, this Court 

finds and concludes that: (a) the Members of the Settlement Class are ascertainable and so 

numerous that joinder of all members is impracticable; (b) there are questions of law or fact 

common to the Settlement Class which predominate over any individual issues; (c) the claims of 

Class Representatives Majeed Seifi, Tracey Deakin, and Raymond Reyner are typical of the 

claims of the members of the Class; (d) each Class Representative has fairly and adequately 

protected the interests of the members of the Class; (e) a class action is superior to other available 

methods for an efficient adjudication of this controversy; and (f) the counsel of record for the 

Class Representatives, i.e., Class Counsel, are qualified to serve as counsel for Plaintiffs in their 

individual and representative capacities and for the Settlement Class. The Court’s findings are 

based on Plaintiffs’ motions for preliminary approval and final approval, and on the fact that 

Defendant has not opposed class certification for the limited purpose of the Settlement. The Court 

further recognizes that certification under this Order is for settlement purposes only, and shall not 

constitute or be construed as an admission by Defendant that this action is appropriate for class 

treatment for litigation purposes. 

25. At their request, the individuals who sought exclusion from the Settlement Class on 

a timely basis as identified in the Supplemental Declaration of Lacey Racines re Notice 

Procedures, Exhibit A, are excluded from the Settlement Class. The parties do not object to 

requested exclusions by individuals who filed untimely exclusion requests, including those 

individuals listed in Exhibit B to the Supplemental Declaration of Lacey Racines re Notice 

Procedures. Those individuals listed in Exhibit B are also excluded from the Settlement Class.

26. The Settlement Agreement is not an admission by MBUSA or by any other 

Released Party, nor is this order a finding of the validity of any allegations or of any wrongdoing 

by Defendant or any Released Party. Neither this order, the Settlement Agreement, nor any 

document referred to herein, nor any action taken to carry out the Settlement Agreement, may be 

construed as, or may be used as, an admission of any fault, wrongdoing, omission, concession, or 

Case 3:12-cv-05493-TEH Document 207 Filed 08/18/15 Page 9 of 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

-9- Case No. 12-CV-05493 (TEH)

[PROPOSED] ORDER GRANTING FINAL APPROVAL OF CLASS ACTION SETTLEMENT

liability whatsoever by or against MBUSA or any of the other Released Parties. 

27. All Settlement Class Members were given a full and fair opportunity to participate 

in the Final Approval Hearing, and all members of the Settlement Class wishing to be heard have 

been heard. Members of the Settlement Class also have had a full and fair opportunity to exclude 

themselves from the Settlement and the Settlement Class. Accordingly, every Settlement Class 

Member, except for those excluded from the Settlement Class as defined above, shall be bound by 

the Settlement Agreement and be deemed to release and forever discharge all Released Claims and 

as outlined in Sections 4.10-4.17 of the Settlement Agreement. To effectuate the Settlement, the 

Court hereby orders that all Class Members who did not timely exclude themselves from the 

Settlement are barred, enjoined, and restrained from commencing, prosecuting, or asserting any 

Released Claim against MBUSA or any other Released Party. 

28. The Court retains jurisdiction over the administration and effectuation of the 

Settlement. 

29. The Court enters judgment and dismissal of the entire action with prejudice, as of 

the filing date of entry of this final order. 

IT IS SO ORDERED. 

Dated: 08/17/15 _________________________________ 

 HON. THELTON E. HENDERSON 

 UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORN

I

A

IT IS SO ORDERED

AS MODIFIED

Judge Thelton E. Henderson

Case 3:12-cv-05493-TEH Document 207 Filed 08/18/15 Page 10 of 10