Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-3_12-cv-01377/USCOURTS-cand-3_12-cv-01377-19/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 890
Nature of Suit: Other Statutory Actions
Cause of Action: 28:1331 Fed. Question

---

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 

ALEX SOTO, et al., 

Plaintiffs, 

v. 

AMERICAN HONDA MOTOR CO., INC., 

Defendant. 

Case No. 12-cv-01377-SI 

ORDER CLOSING FINAL JUDGMENT 

On March 27, 2014, following the March 21, 2014 Final Approval Hearing in this class 

action settlement, the Court issued an Order Granting Final Approval of Class Action Settlement 

and Application for Attorneys’ Fees, and Class Representative Payment, and Final Judgment and 

Order of Dismissal with Prejudice (“Final Order and Judgment”). Dkt. No. 109. The Final Order 

and Judgment approved the settlement described in the Settlement Agreement.1

On November 18, 2015, pursuant to Rule 60(b)(6), the parties filed a Joint Motion to 

Partially Reopen the Final Order and Judgment for the Sole Purpose of Providing Direct Notice to 

Settlement Class Members in Washington State to Whom Direct Notice Was Inadvertently Not 

Made (the “Joint Motion”). Dkt. No. 114. The basis for the Joint Motion is that the vendor hired 

by Defendant American Honda Motor Co., Inc. (“AHM”) to mail settlement class Notice to all 

Settlement Class Members in the nationwide settlement class inadvertently failed to mail notice to 

 1

 The parties to the above-captioned litigation (the “Litigation”) entered into a Class Action 

Settlement Agreement and Release, dated September 9, 2013, together with exhibits (collectively, 

the “Settlement Agreement”), that set forth the terms and conditions for a proposed settlement. 

The Settlement Agreement was submitted to this Court on September 11, 2013. Dkt. No. 73-1. 

Unless otherwise defined herein, terms and phrases in this Order shall have the same meaning as 

ascribed to them in the Settlement Agreement, which is incorporated herein by reference. 

Case 3:12-cv-01377-SI Document 127 Filed 05/03/16 Page 1 of 6
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 

the Settlement Class Members with Settlement Class Vehicles registered in the state of 

Washington as of September 18, 2013 (the “Omitted Owner Group”). The Joint Motion requested 

that the Court partially reopen the Final Judgment only as to the Omitted Owner Group for the 

sole purpose of giving the Omitted Owner Group direct notice of the Settlement and affording 

them an opportunity to opt-out, object, and to exercise all rights under the terms of the Settlement 

Agreement. 

On December 7, 2015, for good cause shown, the Court granted the Joint Motion and 

issued an Order Partially Reopening the Final Judgment for the Sole Purpose of Providing Direct 

Notice to Settlement Class Members in Washington State to Whom Direct Notice was 

Inadvertently Not Made (the “Supplemental Order”). Dkt. No. 116. The Supplemental Order 

partially reopened the Final Order and Judgment solely as to the Omitted Owner Group, and 

directed dissemination of Supplemental Notice and a revised Claim Form to the Omitted Owner 

Group. The Supplemental Order stated that the Final Order and Judgment remained and remains 

final as to all parties other than the Omitted Owner Group. Id. at ¶ 1. 

On or before January 29, 2016, the Settlement Administrator caused the Supplemental 

Notice and revised Claim Form to be mailed to the Omitted Owner Group. Dkt. No. 123, ¶¶ 3-5. 

The Omitted Owner Group’s mailing addresses were obtained by R.L. Polk & Co. via good faith 

search of Polk’s proprietary database of vehicle title and record owner information. Id. R.L. 

Polk ran the resulting owner addresses through the National Change of Address Service to 

obtain the most current mailing address available, and procedures were put into place for the 

handling and re-mailing of returned mail. Id. In addition, the Settlement Administrator 

maintained a dedicated settlement website containing the Settlement Agreement, the 

Supplemental Notice, and the revised Claim Form, and other relevant settlement and Court 

documents. See Dkt. No. 122. 

Following the dissemination of the Supplemental Notice by mail, and the posting of the 

Supplemental Notice and revised Claim Form on the settlement website, members of the 

Omitted Owner Group were given an opportunity to: (i) submit timely requests for exclusion 

Case 3:12-cv-01377-SI Document 127 Filed 05/03/16 Page 2 of 6
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 

from the Settlement Class; or (ii) object to the Settlement Agreement and provide notice of their 

intent to appear at the Supplemental Hearing. 

From among an Omitted Owner Group of over 28,177 current or former owners or lessees 

of Settlement Class Vehicles registered in the state of Washington as of September 18, only one 

objection was received. The Court has reviewed the sole objection letter, and finds that the 

objections asserted therein relate to issues of oil consumption that are not germane to the Engine 

Misfire issues that are the subject of the Settlement Agreement. Accordingly, the Court overrules 

the objection. However, at the hearing counsel for AHM stipulated that, with respect to the 

objector, the statute of limitations on claims regarding oil consumption would be tolled through 

April 22, 2016. The Court also directed plaintiffs' counsel to write a letter to the objector 

informing the objector of that stipulation and explaining that the settlement did not cover or 

release claims regarding oil consumption. 

The Court also received from the Settlement Administrator copies of six (6) timely 

requests by members of the Omitted Owner Group for exclusion from the settlement. Dkt. Nos. 

120 ¶¶ 4-6; 120-1; 120-2; 121, ¶¶ 4-7, 121-1; 121-2; 121-3. 

The Supplemental Hearing was held on April 22, 2016, at 10:00 a.m. No members of the 

Omitted Owner Group provided notice of their intent to appear at the Supplemental Hearing to 

object to, or otherwise comment on, the settlement, and, in fact, no members of the Omitted 

Owner Group did appear at the Supplemental Hearing. 

NOW THEREFORE, this matter having been brought before the Court on the Joint Motion 

of the parties, the Court having fully considered the evidence and submissions of the parties and 

the Settlement Administrator on the Joint Motion, and the positions of the parties as expressed on 

the record at the Supplemental Hearing, the Court hereby makes the following findings of fact and 

conclusions of law: 

1. The Court reaffirms its finding in Supplemental Order that the Final Order and 

Judgment remained and remains final as to all parties other than the Omitted Owner Group, and 

has in no way been affected by the parties’ Joint Motion, which sought limited relief affecting 

only the Omitted Owner Group. 

Case 3:12-cv-01377-SI Document 127 Filed 05/03/16 Page 3 of 6
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 

United States District Court 

Northern District of California 

2. The Court finds that the manner of dissemination and content of the Supplemental 

Notice as specified in detail in the Settlement Agreement and the Supplemental Order (Dkt. No. 

116), and as revised jointly by the parties (Dkt. No. 119): 

i. constituted the best notice practicable; 

ii. constituted notice that was reasonably calculated under the circumstances to 

apprise member of the Omitted Owner Group of the pendency of the 

Litigation, of their right to object to or exclude themselves from the proposed 

settlement, of their right to appear at the Supplemental Hearing, and of their 

right to seek monetary and other relief; 

iii. constituted reasonable, due, adequate and sufficient notice to all persons 

entitled to receive notice, and 

iv. met all applicable requirements of Due Process and any other applicable law or 

requirement. Full and fair opportunity has been afforded to the members of the 

Omitted Owner Group to be heard at and to participate in the Supplemental 

Hearing. 

3. The Court finds that the parties and the Settlement Administrator have fully 

complied with their respective obligations as set forth in the Supplemental Order entered by this 

Court on December 7, 2015. 

Based upon the foregoing findings of fact and conclusions of law, which are based upon 

and supported by the substantial evidence presented by the Parties hereto and members of Omitted 

Owner Group, all of which the Court has considered and is in the record before the Court, 

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED as follows: 

4. Pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 60(b), the Final Order and Judgment, which was 

partially opened solely to afford direct notice of the Settlement to the Omitted Owner Group is 

hereby CLOSED, and is in all respects Final as to the Omitted Owner Group. 

5. The Court hereby overrules the objections raised by the sole objecting member of 

the Omitted Owner Group on the merits, and directs consummation and/or continuance of all of 

the Settlement Agreement’s terms and provisions as to the Omitted Owner Group. 

Case 3:12-cv-01377-SI Document 127 Filed 05/03/16 Page 4 of 6
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 

United States District Court 

Northern District of California 

6. The Court approves the list of Opt-Outs attached hereto as Exhibit A and 

determines that Exhibit A is a complete list of all members of the Omitted Owner Group who 

timely have requested exclusion from the Settlement Class and, accordingly, shall neither share 

in nor be bound by the Final Order and Judgment, subject to the terms of the Settlement 

Agreement. Members of the Omitted Owner Group appearing on this Opt-Out list that elect to 

receive benefits under the Settlement Agreement shall be deemed to have rescinded their request 

to exclude themselves from the settlement, thereby once again becoming members of the 

Settlement Class and subject to the terms of the Settlement Agreement and this Court’s orders.

7. The Court adjudges that the Omitted Owner Group has conclusively compromised, 

settled, dismissed and released any and all Released Claims against AHM and the Releasees. 

8. The Court declares that the Settlement Agreement and the Final Order and 

Judgment to be binding on, and have res judicata and preclusive effect in all pending and future 

lawsuits or other proceedings encompassed by the Release and the Released Claims maintained by 

or on behalf of the Named Plaintiff and all other Settlement Class Members, including the Omitted 

Owner Group, as well as their successors, assigns, past, present, and future parents, subsidiaries, 

joint venturers, partnerships, related companies, affiliates, unincorporated entities, divisions, 

groups, directors, officers, shareholders, employees, agents, representatives, servants, partners, 

executors, administrators, assigns, predecessors, successors, descendants, dependents, and heirs. 

9. By operation of the Final Order and the Judgment, which is now closed by this 

Order, and in consideration of the Settlement Agreement and the benefits extended to the members 

of the Omitted Owner Group, on behalf of themselves, or their respective successors, assigns, past, 

present, and future parents, subsidiaries, joint venturers, partnerships, related companies, affiliates, 

unincorporated entities, divisions, groups, directors, officers, shareholders, employees, agents, 

representatives, servants, partners, executors, administrators, assigns, predecessors, successors, 

descendants, dependents, and heirs, are deemed to have fully released and forever discharged the 

Releasees from the Released Claims in accordance and consistent with the terms of the Settlement 

Agreement, but not as to any obligations created or owed to them under the terms of the 

Settlement Agreement. 

Case 3:12-cv-01377-SI Document 127 Filed 05/03/16 Page 5 of 6
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 

United States District Court 

Northern District of California

10. Effective as of the date of this Order, to the fullest extent permitted by law, the 

Court orders and enters a permanent injunction barring and enjoining the Omitted Owner Group, 

from: (i) filing, commencing, prosecuting, intervening in or participating (as class members or 

otherwise) in any other lawsuit or administrative, regulatory, arbitration or other proceeding in any 

jurisdiction based on, relating to or arising out of the claims and causes of action or the facts and 

circumstances arbitration or other proceeding in any jurisdiction based on, relating to or arising 

out of the claims and causes of action or the facts and circumstances giving rise to the Litigation or 

the Released Claims; and (ii) organizing the Omitted Owner Group, who have not been excluded 

from the class into a separate class for purposes of pursuing as a purported class action any lawsuit 

or arbitration or other proceeding (including by seeking to amend a pending complaint to include 

class allegations or seeking class certification in a pending action) based on, relating to or arising 

out of the claims and causes of action or the facts and circumstances giving rise to the Litigation 

and/or the Released Claims; the terms of the Release shall not apply to the Opt-Outs listed on 

Exhibit A hereto or to any other persons the Parties agree in writing submitted timely and valid 

requests for exclusion and should also be listed as Opt-Outs unless such persons elect to claim the 

benefits set forth in the Settlement Agreement thereby choosing to rescind their requests for 

exclusion from the Settlement Class. 

11. Without affecting in any way the finality of the judgment entered under the Final 

Order and Judgment, this Court reserves continuing and exclusive jurisdiction over the Parties, 

including all Settlement Class Members and members of the Omitted Owner Group, and the 

execution, consummation, administration and enforcement of the terms of the Settlement 

Agreement. 

12. The Court finds that there is no reason for delay and directs the Clerk to enter this 

Order Closing Final Judgment in accordance with the terms of this Order as of the date of this 

Order. 

IT IS SO ORDERED. 

Dated: May 3, 2016 ______________________________________ 

SUSAN ILLSTON 

United States District Judge 

______________________

Case 3:12-cv-01377-SI Document 127 Filed 05/03/16 Page 6 of 6