Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-3_15-md-02672/USCOURTS-cand-3_15-md-02672-140/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 370
Nature of Suit: Other Fraud
Cause of Action: 15:2301 Magnuson-Moss Warranty Act

---

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

United States District Court

Northern District of California

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

IN RE: VOLKSWAGEN “CLEAN DIESEL” 

MARKETING, SALES PRACTICES, AND 

PRODUCTS LIABILITY LITIGATION

_____________________________________/

This Order Relates To:

ALL ACTIONS (except the securities action)

______________________________________/

MDL No. 2672 CRB (JSC)

ORDER DENYING DYLAN TODD AND 

EMILY TODD’S MOTION TO OPT 

OUT

When the Court preliminarily approved the Amended Consumer and Reseller Dealer Class 

Action Settlement (“Settlement”), it ordered Class Members to request exclusion from the 

Settlement by September 16, 2016 (the “Opt-Out Deadline”). (Dkt. No. 1698 at 32.) Dylan Todd 

and Emily Todd (collectively, the “Todds”) now move the Court to permit them to belatedly opt 

out of the Settlement. (Dkt. No. 2061.) For the reasons set forth below, the Court DENIES the 

Motion. The Todds have not shown that good cause or excusable neglect justify their failure to 

timely opt out. 

BACKGROUND

The Todds own a 2013 Volkswagen Jetta TDI. (Dkt. No. 2061 ¶ 1.) In May 2016, the 

Todds filed a lawsuit against Volkswagen Group of America, Inc. and Volkswagen AG in the 

Eight Judicial District Court in Nevada District Court for violations of the Nevada Deceptive 

Trade Practices Act, Nev. Rev. Stat. § 598.0903. (Id. ¶ 3.) Beginning on or around August 3, 

2016, counsel for the Todds in the Nevada action began contacting their clients about their right to 

opt out of the Settlement. (Id. ¶ 4.) Dylan Todd decided to opt out, but he “mistakenly believed 

that the only requirement to opt out of the class was to have the opt out request to his attorney by 

the September 16, 2016 deadline.” (Id. ¶ 6.) Dylan Todd did so at approximately 6:00 p.m. 

Case 3:15-md-02672-CRB Document 2120 Filed 10/27/16 Page 1 of 3
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

United States District Court

Northern District of California

Pacific Standard Time on September 16, 2016; counsel was therefore unable to have his opt-out 

form postmarked that same day. (Id. ¶¶ 7-8.) 

LEGAL STANDARD

A class member who seeks to opt out of a class action settlement after the applicable 

deadline has passed must show that “excusable neglect” or good cause excuses the delay. Silber v. 

Mabon, 18 F.3d 1449, 1455 (9th Cir. 1994) (footnote omitted); see In re Charles Schwab Corp. 

Sec. Litig., 2010 WL 2178937, at *1 (N.D. Cal. May 27, 2010) (applying excusable neglect 

standard); Wren v. RGIS Inventory Specialists, 2009 WL 1773133, at *3 (N.D. Cal. June 19, 2009) 

(applying good cause standard). In determining whether excusable neglect or good causes exists, 

courts consider

the degree of compliance with the best practicable notice 

procedures; when notice was actually received and if not timely 

received, why not; what caused the delay, and whose responsibility 

was it; how quickly the belated opt out request was made once 

notice was received; how many class members want to opt out; and 

whether allowing a belated opt out would affect either the settlement 

or finality of the judgment. 

Silber, 18 F.3d at 1455 (footnote omitted). 

DISCUSSION

The Todds have not shown that good cause or excusable neglect permits them to opt out

now. The Todds received actual, timely notice of the Settlement through counsel. (See Dkt. No. 

2061 ¶ 4.) With knowledge of the Settlement, the Todds could have sought additional 

information, including how to properly exclude themselves. Indeed, the Long Form Notice 

specifically states that in order to opt out, “[y]ou must mail your exclusion request, postmarked no 

later than September 16, 2016, to Opt Out VW Settlement, P.O. Box 57424, Washington, DC 

20037.” (Dkt. No. 1685-3 at 24 (emphasis added).) The Todds therefore should have known that 

their request to opt out needed to be postmarked by September 16 and that providing their opt-out 

form to counsel at 6:00 p.m. the day of the Opt-Out Deadline would not satisfy this requirement. 

Moreover, the Settlement does not require Class Members to retain counsel to opt out. The Todds 

could have mailed their request for exclusion directly to the appropriate address and informed 

counsel of their decision thereafter. Accordingly, their failure to timely request exclusion does 

Case 3:15-md-02672-CRB Document 2120 Filed 10/27/16 Page 2 of 3
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

United States District Court

Northern District of California

not constitute good cause or excusable neglect. 

CONCLUSION

The Court DENIES Dylan Todd and Emily Todd’s Motion to Opt Out past the September 

16, 2016 deadline. Plaintiffs must remain Class Members as do the others who did not timely

request to opt out. 

This Order disposes of Docket No. 2061.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: October 27, 2016

CHARLES R. BREYER

United States District Judge

Case 3:15-md-02672-CRB Document 2120 Filed 10/27/16 Page 3 of 3