UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN 

SOUTHERN DIVISION 

IN RE: AUTOMOTIVE PARTS 

ANTITRUST LITIGATION 

Master File No. 12-md-02311 

Hon. Marianne O. Battani 

IN RE: WIRE HARNESSES 

IN RE: OCCUPANT SAFETY SYSTEMS 

Case No. 2:14-cv-14451-MOB-MKM 

Case No. 2:14-cv-00107-MOB-MKM 

Case No. 2:15-cv-12050-MOB-MKM 

Case No. 2:15-cv-00607-MOB-MKM 

THIS DOCUMENT RELATES TO 

TRUCK AND EQUIPMENT DEALER 

CASES 

TRUCK AND EQUIPMENT DEALER PLAINTIFFS’ MOTION FOR APPROVAL 

OF ALLOCATION PLANS FOR SETTLEMENTS PRELIMINARILY 

 APPROVED BY THE COURT 

 

Case 2:15-cv-12050-MOB-MKM ECF No. 21 filed 11/07/16 PageID.635 Page 1 of 12
 2 

The Truck and Equipment Dealer Plaintiffs hereby move the Court for approval of Plans 

of Allocation for certain parts at issue in the settlements between the Truck and Equipment 

Dealer Plaintiffs and the Settling Defendants in the above matters. This Motion is based upon 

the argument and authority set forth in the Memorandum submitted in support of this Motion. 

 Respectfully submitted, 

Dated: November 7, 2016 

By: /s/ J. Manly Parks 

Wayne A. Mack (PA Bar #46654) 

J. Manly Parks (PA Bar #74647) 

Andrew R. Sperl (PA Bar #311467) 

William Shotzbarger (PA Bar #320490) 

DUANE MORRIS LLP 

30 S. 17th Street 

Philadelphia, PA 19103 

Phone: (215) 979-1000 

Fax: (215) 979-1020 

wamack@duanemorris.com 

jmparks@duanemorris.com 

arsperl@duanemorris.com 

wshotzbarger@duanemorris.com 

Counsel for Truck and Equipment Dealer 

Plaintiffs

Case 2:15-cv-12050-MOB-MKM ECF No. 21 filed 11/07/16 PageID.636 Page 2 of 12
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN 

SOUTHERN DIVISION 

IN RE: AUTOMOTIVE PARTS 

ANTITRUST LITIGATION 

Master File No. 12-md-02311 

Hon. Marianne O. Battani 

IN RE: WIRE HARNESSES 

IN RE: OCCUPANT SAFETY SYSTEMS 

Case No. 2:14-cv-14451-MOB-MKM 

Case No. 2:14-cv-00107-MOB-MKM 

Case No. 2:15-cv-12050-MOB-MKM 

Case No. 2:15-cv-00607-MOB-MKM 

THIS DOCUMENT RELATES TO 

TRUCK AND EQUIPMENT DEALER 

CASES 

TRUCK AND EQUIPMENT DEALER PLAINTIFFS’ MEMORANDUM IN SUPPORT 

OF MOTION FOR APPROVAL OF ALLOCATION PLANS FOR SETTLEMENTS 

PRELIMINARILY APPROVED BY THE COURT 

Case 2:15-cv-12050-MOB-MKM ECF No. 21 filed 11/07/16 PageID.637 Page 3 of 12
STATEMENT OF ISSUES PRESENTED 

1. Whether the Court should approve the Plans of Allocation for parts involved in the Truck 

and Equipment Dealer settlement classes for which the Court previously granted final 

approval? 

Suggested Answer: Yes 

Case 2:15-cv-12050-MOB-MKM ECF No. 21 filed 11/07/16 PageID.638 Page 4 of 12
CONTROLLING OR MOST APPROPRIATE AUTHORITIES 

 In re Packaged Ice Antitrust Litigation, No. 08-MD-01952, 2011 WL 6209188, at 

*15-16 (E.D. Mich. Dec. 13, 2011)

Case 2:15-cv-12050-MOB-MKM ECF No. 21 filed 11/07/16 PageID.639 Page 5 of 12
 i 

TABLE OF CONTENTS 

Page 

Introduction ......................................................................................................................................1 

Background ......................................................................................................................................1 

I. The Plans of Allocation of Parts Involved in the Settlements .................................1 

Argument .........................................................................................................................................2 

I. The Court Should Approve the Plans. .....................................................................2 

Conclusion .......................................................................................................................................4 

 

Case 2:15-cv-12050-MOB-MKM ECF No. 21 filed 11/07/16 PageID.640 Page 6 of 12
 ii 

TABLE OF AUTHORITIES 

Page(s) 

Cases 

In re Aetna, Inc., No. Civ. A. MDL 1219, 2001 WL 20928 (E.D. Pa. Jan.4, 2001) .......................3 

In re Cardizem CD Antitrust Litig., 218 F.R.D. 508 (E.D. Mich. 2003) ..................................... 2-3 

In re Ikon Office Solutions Sec. Litig., 194 F.R.D. 166 (E.D. Pa. 2000) .........................................3 

Meijer, Inc. v. 3M, Civ. No. 04-5871, 2006 WL 2382718 (E.D. Pa. 2006) ....................................3 

In re Packaged Ice Antitrust Litig., No. 08-MD-01952, 2011 WL 6209188 (E.D. 

Mich. Dec. 13, 2011) ............................................................................................................. 2-3 

Other Authorities 

Fed. R. Civ. P. 30(b)(1)....................................................................................................................3 

Fed. R. Civ. P. 30(b)(6)....................................................................................................................3 

Case 2:15-cv-12050-MOB-MKM ECF No. 21 filed 11/07/16 PageID.641 Page 7 of 12
 1 

INTRODUCTION 

Truck and Equipment Dealer Plaintiffs (“TEDPs”) seek approval of two plans of 

allocation (the “Plans”): one for the Wire Harnesses case settlements and the other for the 

Occupant Safety Systems case settlements. Through this motion, TEDPs respectfully request that 

the Court approve the Plans being submitted with this Motion. As with the allocation plans 

previously approved by the Court in this MDL, the Plans were developed using information 

obtained during discovery and from cooperating settling Defendants. TEDPs’ allocation 

consultant, William Wickersham, was involved in the development of the Plans and supports 

their approval. 

BACKGROUND 

I. The Plans of Allocation of Parts Involved in the Settlements 

The terms of the Truck and Equipment Dealer settlements preliminarily approved by the 

Court require considerable cooperation from the settling Defendants. Using information 

obtained from such cooperation and through discovery, TEDPs’ counsel and their allocation 

consultant, William Wickersham, have developed the Plans for fairly distributing the settlement 

proceeds to eligible members of the Truck and Equipment Dealer settlement classes. 

Counsel for TEDPs used information available about the parts, brands, and models 

targeted by anticompetitive conduct to devise a point-based system that provides greater weight 

to the purchase of models and brands for which there is more significant evidence that efforts 

were made to coordinate bids and fix prices for component parts used in those vehicles. (See 

Exs. A and B.) The Plans use an approach similar to the allocation plans the Court approved for 

the Auto Dealer settlements in the Wire Harnesses and Occupant Safety Systems cases. 

Case 2:15-cv-12050-MOB-MKM ECF No. 21 filed 11/07/16 PageID.642 Page 8 of 12
 2 

ARGUMENT 

I. The Court Should Approve the Plans. 

TEDPs request that the Court approve the Plans. The Plans fairly and equitably distribute 

the net settlement proceeds to members of the Settlement Classes who submit claim forms for 

new vehicles and affected component parts purchased in the Included States.1 They use 

information available about the parts and brands and models targeted by anticompetitive conduct 

and apply a point-based system that provides greater weight to the purchase of models and 

brands for which there is evidence that efforts were made to coordinate bids and fix prices for 

component parts used in those vehicles. (See Exs. A-B). 

The Plans provide a scoring system for vehicles and parts purchased by eligible Truck 

and Equipment Dealers. (See Exs. A-B). Every eligible dealerships that submits a valid claim 

will receive a minimum allocation of ten points under the Plans, thereby ensuring some 

proportional recovery by every such member of the Settlement Classes. (Id.) 

The Plans provide a fair and reasonable method for distributing the settlement funds, 

provide eligible members of the Settlement Classes with information about how the calculations 

will be made, and therefore should be approved by the Court. See In re Cardizem CD Antitrust 

Litig., 218 F.R.D. 508, 531 (E.D. Mich. 2003). “‘Approval of a plan of allocation of a settlement 

fund in a class action is governed by the same standards of review applicable to approval of the 

settlement as a whole; the distribution plan must be fair, reasonable and adequate.’“ In re 

Packaged Ice Antitrust Litig., No. 08-MD-01952, 2011 WL 6209188, at *15-16 (E.D. Mich. 

 

1

 The Included States are as follows: Arizona, Arkansas, California, Florida, Hawaii, Illinois, 

Iowa, Kansas, Maine, Massachusetts, Michigan, Minnesota, Mississippi, Missouri, Nebraska, 

Nevada, New Hampshire, New Mexico, New York, North Carolina, North Dakota, Oregon, 

South Carolina, South Dakota, Tennessee, Utah, Vermont, West Virginia, and Wisconsin. 

Case 2:15-cv-12050-MOB-MKM ECF No. 21 filed 11/07/16 PageID.643 Page 9 of 12
 3 

Dec. 13, 2011) (quoting Meijer, Inc. v. 3M, Civ. No. 04-5871, 2006 WL 2382718, at*17 (E.D. 

Pa. 2006)); In re Ikon Office Solutions Sec. Litig., 194 F.R.D. 166, 184 (E.D. Pa. 2000)). 

“‘Courts generally consider plans of allocation that reimburse class members based on 

the type and extent of their injuries to be reasonable.’” In re Packaged Ice, 2011 WL 6209188, 

at *15-16 (quoting In re Aetna, Inc., No. Civ. A. MDL 1219, 2001 WL 20928, at *12 (E.D. Pa. 

Jan.4, 2001)); Cardizem, 218 F.R.D. at 531 (approving a plan as fair and reasonable that adopted 

a pro rata method for calculating each class member's share of the settlement fund). The 

approach used by the Plans provides reimbursement to the eligible members of the Settlement 

Classes based on the relative extent of injury the Truck and Equipment Dealers believe they 

sustained. The Plans assign weighted point scores based on the volume of purchases of affected 

vehicles and parts. 

Vehicles and parts for which there is significant evidence of coordinated bid and pricing 

activity receive more weight. Through written discovery, extensive document review, Fed. R. 

Civ. P. 30(b)(1) and 30(b)(6) depositions, and attorney proffers and other forms of cooperation, 

TEDPs discovered substantial evidence of coordination by certain Defendants for certain vehicle 

parts. This coordination was often tied to requests for quotations (“RFQs”) from original 

equipment manufacturers (“OEMs”) for certain specific makes and models of vehicles to 

Defendant vehicle parts suppliers. Specifically, in the Wire Harnesses case, the makes and 

models of medium-duty trucks outlined in Exhibits A and B were believed to be affected by 

Defendants’ price-fixing and bid-rigging. Thus, the makes and models in Exhibits A and B 

reflect vehicles that TEDPs believe were most affected by the conspiracy, and, therefore, the 

dealers of those trucks should receive a higher allocation of settlement funds. 

Case 2:15-cv-12050-MOB-MKM ECF No. 21 filed 11/07/16 PageID.644 Page 10 of 12
 4 

This approach provides a fair and reasonable method for allocating more money to those 

Truck and Equipment dealers who sold more of the affected parts and vehicles. Both plans 

ensure that every valid claimant will receive some payment, the amount of which will depend on 

the number of valid claims submitted. The allocation plans also permit claims for replacement 

parts. The Plans and claims process are also designed to minimize the burden on Truck and 

Equipment Dealers in making a claim. These claims will be subject to audit by the settlement 

administrator. Accordingly, TEDPs believe that the Court should approve the Plans for the 

Truck and Equipment Dealer settlements involving Wire Harness Systems and Occupant Safety 

Systems. 

CONCLUSION 

For the foregoing reasons, the Truck and Equipment Dealers respectfully request that the 

Court grant approval of the Plans of Allocation submitted with this motion. 

 Respectfully submitted, 

Dated: November 7, 2016 

By: /s/ J. Manly Parks 

Wayne A. Mack (PA Bar #46654) 

J. Manly Parks (PA Bar #74647) 

Andrew R. Sperl (PA Bar #311467) 

William Shotzbarger (PA Bar #320490) 

DUANE MORRIS LLP 

30 S. 17th Street 

Philadelphia, PA 19103 

Phone: (215) 979-1000 

Fax: (215) 979-1020 

wamack@duanemorris.com 

jmparks@duanemorris.com 

Counsel for Truck and Equipment Dealer 

Plaintiffs

Case 2:15-cv-12050-MOB-MKM ECF No. 21 filed 11/07/16 PageID.645 Page 11 of 12
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE 

I, J. Manly Parks, hereby certify that I caused a true and correct copy of Truck and 

Equipment Dealer Plaintiffs’ Motion and Memorandum in Support of Motion for Approval of 

Allocation Plans for Settlements Preliminarily Approved by the Court to be served via email 

upon all registered counsel of record via the Court’s CM/ECF system on November 7, 2016. 

 /s/ J. Manly Parks 

 J. Manly Parks 

DM1\7303374.3

Case 2:15-cv-12050-MOB-MKM ECF No. 21 filed 11/07/16 PageID.646 Page 12 of 12