In re Volkswagen & Audi Warranty Extension Litigation
273 F.R.D. 349
D. Mass.2011Background
- Final Fairness Hearing held March 11, 2011 to approve a proposed settlement of consolidated class actions under Fed. R. Civ. P. 23(e).
- Sept. 24, 2010 Order [#166] conditionally approved the Class Settlement, certified the class for settlement purposes, and appointed Class Counsel.
- Notice of conditional approval and final hearing was published in USA Today and mailed to 1,603,031 Settlement Class Members.
- No one spoke in opposition at the Fairness Hearing; both Class Counsel and Defendants urged approval.
- The Settlement Agreement dated September 2, 2010, and its exhibits, were deemed approved; provisions include notice, OSSA administration, exclusions, and claim administration.
- Final Approval Order and Judgment incorporated the Agreement, awarded incentive payments to named class representatives, and reserved rights on termination or appeal.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the Settlement satisfies Rule 23(a) requirements | Plaintiffs contend numerosity, commonality, typicality, and adequacy are met. | Defendants argue the proposed settlement may not satisfy these prerequisites. | Yes; the court finds Rule 23(a) satisfied for settlement purposes. |
| Whether Rule 23(b)(3) predominance and superiority are met | Plaintiffs assert common questions predominate and class action is superior for adjudication. | Defendants contend the predominance/superiority concerns are outweighed by individual issues. | Yes; the settlement class satisfies predominance and superiority for settlement purposes. |
| Whether the Settlement Class should be certified for settlement purposes only | Certification is appropriate to facilitate fair, efficient resolution. | Certification for settlement only should be limited or rejected. | The Settlement Class is certified for settlement purposes only. |
| Whether the notice and opt-out procedures complied with due process and Rule 23 | Notice was reasonable, adequate, and properly disseminated, with valid opt-outs. | Notice procedures complied with the Agreement and governing rules. | Notice and opt-out procedures approved as compliant. |
Key Cases Cited
- Holton v. Rothschild, 118 F.R.D. 280 (D. Mass. 1987) (factors for class settlement approval guidance)
- McCuin v. Sec’y of Health & Human Servs., 817 F.2d 161 (1st Cir. 1987) (class action standards and settlement considerations)
- M. Berenson Co., Inc. v. Faneuil Hall Marketplace, Inc., 100 F.R.D. 468 (D. Mass. 1984) (settlement and class certification principles)
- In re Pharm. Indus. Average Wholesale Price Litig., 230 F.R.D. 61 (D. Mass. 2005) (complex price-fixing litigation and class settlement analysis)
- Stewart v. Abraham, 275 F.3d 220 (3d Cir. 2001) (claims and class action considerations in third circuit)