1 

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF OHIO 

EASTERN DIVISION 

IN RE: PORSCHE CARS NORTH Case No. 2:11-md-2233 

AMERICA, INC. PLASTIC COOLANT 

TUBES PRODUCTS LIABILITY 

LITIGATION JUDGE GREGORY L. FROST 

 Magistrate Judge E.A. Preston Deavers 

 

This document relates to: ALL CASES. 

ORDER 

 This matter is before the Court for consideration of Jeffrey M. Edelson’s Motion to 

Intervene and be Excluded from the Settlement Class or to Allow Objections to Proposed 

Settlement. (ECF No. 168.) For the reasons that follow, the Court DENIES the motion. 

According to his filings, Mr. Edelson is a licensed practicing attorney in Oregon. He 

owns a 2004 Porsche Cayenne. After receiving the class notice approximately two months ago, 

Mr. Edelson understood that he may be a member of this class action. (ECF No. 169 ¶ 5.) He 

states that he “briefly reviewed the materials” at that time but “did not understand the technical 

issues” involved. (Id.) Only after his coolant tubes failed several weeks later did Mr. Edelson 

attempt to exercise his rights as a class member in the above-captioned litigation. 

Mr. Edelson now moves to “intervene” in this litigation, although he does not actually 

seek to intervene in the sense contemplated by Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 24.1

 Rather, he 

first asks for the exact opposite: to be excluded from the class and therefore from this litigation. 

 

1

 Indeed, if the Court were to analyze Mr. Edelson’s motion under Rule 24, it would find that the motion is deficient 

because it does not comply with Rule 24(c). 

Case: 2:11-md-02233-GLF-EPD Doc #: 170 Filed: 02/28/14 Page: 1 of 4 PAGEID #: <pageID>
2 

In the alternative, Mr. Edelson asks to submit objections to the proposed Class Action Settlement 

Agreement and to present those objections in a telephonic hearing. 

Mr. Edelson’s motion and accompanying Declaration are postmarked February 20, 2014. 

The Court received the same on February 25, 2014, and the motions were docketed on February 

27, 2014. The final fairness hearing in this class action litigation is scheduled for March 10, 

2014. 

 The March 10, 2014 fairness hearing was scheduled pursuant to the Court’s August 26, 

2013 Preliminary Approval Order of the parties’ proposed settlement agreement (“Order”). 

(ECF No. 147.) In that Order, the Court preliminarily certified the Settlement Class. The Court 

further stated: 

All members of the Settlement Class who do not request exclusion (“optout”) from the Settlement Class pursuant to the requirements of Paragraph 21 

below shall be bound by all determinations and judgments in the Action 

concerning the settlement, including, but not limited to, the dismissal of the 

Action with prejudice and the validity, binding nature, and effectiveness of the 

release set forth in Paragraph 50 of the [proposed Settlement Agreement and 

Release of Claims dated May 6, 2013]. 

(ECF No. 147 ¶ 19.) Notably, pursuant to Paragraph 21 of the Order, “[a]ny member of the 

Settlement Class who wishes to opt-out of the Settlement Class shall submit to the Settlement 

Administrator, with a postmark no later than February 10, 2014, an appropriate written request 

for exclusion . . . .” (Id. ¶ 21 (emphasis added).) Regarding class members who sought to 

remain in the class but object to the proposed agreement, the Court stated: 

Any member of the Settlement Class who had not previously opted-out . . . may 

appear at the Final Fairness Hearing to argue that the proposed settlement should 

not be approved . . . provided, however, that no Settlement Class Member shall 

be heard, and no objection may be considered, unless the Settlement Class 

Member has filed with this Court a valid written statement of the objection 

postmarked no later than February 10, 2014. 

(Id. ¶ 22 (emphasis added).) 

Case: 2:11-md-02233-GLF-EPD Doc #: 170 Filed: 02/28/14 Page: 2 of 4 PAGEID #: <pageID>
3 

 Setting an opt-out date before a final fairness hearing is not prejudicial to class members. 

See, e.g., Bowling v. Pfizer, Inc., 143 F.R.D. 141, 155 (S.D. Ohio 1992). It similarly is not unfair 

to require class members to submit objections in advance of the final fairness hearing. Id. at 156. 

Indeed, requiring class members to submit objections on a set date in advance of the hearing 

allows class counsel to assess those objections before the filing of a motion for approval of the 

proposed settlement agreement. See id. 

 Here, Mr. Edelson asserts that he is part of the Settlement Class. He represents that he 

received the notice “[a]pproximately two months” before the opt-out date but he chose not to act. 

(ECF No. 169 ¶ 5.) Mr. Edelson is a practicing attorney. (Id. ¶ 2.) And although he asserts that 

he did not understand the technical aspects of the class notice, he does not assert that he made 

any attempt to remedy his alleged confusion (such as, for example, contacting class counsel or 

the Settlement Administrator in advance of the February 10, 2014 deadline). In short, there are 

no equitable considerations that the Court can even consider in addressing Mr. Edelson’s request 

for a retroactive extension of the February 10, 2014 deadline. 

 The February 10, 2014 deadline has come and gone. On February 24, 2014, Plaintiffs 

filed a motion for final approval of the proposed settlement agreement. (ECF No. 164.) The 

motion addresses timely objections filed by individuals in a similar position as Mr. Edelson. 

Defendants filed a response, which also addresses the timely objections, on that same day. (ECF 

No. 167.) Mr. Edelson’s motion, dated February 20, 2014, and received by the Court on 

February 25, 2014, simply comes too late. 

The Court DENIES Mr. Edelson’s motion. (ECF No. 168.) Because Mr. Edelson did 

not submit timely objections, the Court also DENIES AS MOOT Mr. Edelson’s request for a 

Case: 2:11-md-02233-GLF-EPD Doc #: 170 Filed: 02/28/14 Page: 3 of 4 PAGEID #: <pageID>
4 

telephonic hearing and/or to participate via telephone in the March 10, 2014 Final Fairness 

Hearing. 

 IT IS SO ORDERED. 

 /s/ Gregory L. Frost 

 GREGORY L. FROST 

 UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

 

Case: 2:11-md-02233-GLF-EPD Doc #: 170 Filed: 02/28/14 Page: 4 of 4 PAGEID #: <pageID>