Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-3_15-md-02672/USCOURTS-cand-3_15-md-02672-141/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 KAREN 

FRIEDMANN’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.) Karen 

Friedmann now moves the Court to permit her to belatedly opt out of the Settlement. (Dkt. No. 

2062.) For the reasons set forth below, the Court DENIES the Motion. Friedmann has not 

demonstrated that good cause or excusable neglect justify her failure to timely opt out. 

BACKGROUND

Friedmann owns a 2010 Volkswagen Jetta TDI. (Dkt. No. 2062 ¶ 1.) She received notice 

of the Settlement in late August 2016 and decided to opt out after reviewing it. (Id. ¶¶ 2-3.) But 

Firedmann misunderstood the requirements to opt out of the class. (Id. ¶ 4.) She did not know her 

request for exclusion had to be postmarked by September 16, 2016; rather, she “believed that she 

was able to opt out of the class action by the Final Fairness Hearing, scheduled for October 18, 

2016.” (Id.) Family circumstances prevented her from discussing her options with an attorney 

until after September 16, 2016. (Id. ¶¶ 5-6.) She provided counsel with her opt out form on 

September 27, 2016. (Id. ¶ 6.) 

//

Case 3:15-md-02672-CRB Document 2121 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

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

Friedmann has not shown that good cause or excusable neglect permits her to opt out

beyond the Opt-Out Deadline. As an initial matter, the factual contentions set forth in the 

Friedmann’s Motion are unsupported by declaration. (See Civil L.R. 7-5.) In any event, 

Friedmann received actual, timely notice of the Settlement. (See Dkt. No. 2062 ¶ 2.) The 

Settlement provides that the “‘Opt-Out Deadline’ means the last day a Class Member may opt out 

of the Class Action Settlement, which is September 16, 2016, for all Class Members who are Class 

Members as of that date.” (Dkt. No. 1685 ¶ 2.51 (emphasis added).) The Long Form Notice 

further explains 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.) Thus, Friedmann should have known that she needed to submit 

her request for exclusion by September 16. Moreover, the Settlement does not require Class 

Members to retain counsel to opt out; rather, Friedman could have mailed her request for 

exclusion herself. Accordingly, her failure to timely request exclusion does not constitute good 

cause or excusable neglect. 

Case 3:15-md-02672-CRB Document 2121 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

CONCLUSION

The Court DENIES Friedmann’s Motion to Opt Out past the September 16, 2016 deadline. 

Friedmann must remain a Class Member as do the others who did not timely request to opt out. 

This Order disposes of Docket No. 2062.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: October 27, 2016

CHARLES R. BREYER

United States District Judge

Case 3:15-md-02672-CRB Document 2121 Filed 10/27/16 Page 3 of 3