UDEEN v. SUBARU OF AMERICA, 1:18-cv-17334

Background

Plaintiffs filed a nationwide class action (removed to federal court) alleging defects and nondisclosure related to the Generation 3.0 Starlink infotainment system in certain 2017–2018 Subaru models, asserting MMWA, state consumer-protection statutes, warranty and common-law claims.
After limited discovery and two mediations before a retired federal judge, the parties reached a settlement; defendants deny liability but agreed to relief to resolve claims.
Settlement relief includes: automatic 5-year/100,000-mile warranty extension for Starlink, monetary/coupon payments for repeat repair visits, payments for delays in replacement units, reimbursement of certain repair-related expenses, and compensation to purchasers of extended warranties; estimated value > $6.25 million.
Settlement class: all U.S. (including AK/HI) current or former owners/lessees of specified 2017–2018 Subaru models equipped with Gen. 3.0 Starlink; claim submission required for monetary awards; JND to administer claims; defendants pay administration costs.
The Court preliminarily approved the settlement and provisionally certified the settlement class for purposes of Rule 23, finding the agreement the product of arm’s-length negotiations, the Girsh factors and Rule 23(a)/(b)(3) requirements satisfied at the preliminary stage, and the proposed notice plan adequate.

Issues

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Preliminary approval of settlement	Settlement negotiated at arm’s length with mediator; provides targeted relief worth >$6.2M; within range of reasonableness	No admission of liability; settlement resolves risk and expense of litigation	Granted preliminary approval; settlement entitled to presumption of fairness; Girsh factors favor approval
Certification of settlement class under Rule 23	Class meets numerosity, commonality/predominance, typicality, adequacy; class action superior for modest individual claims	Defendants did not contest settlement-class certification and reserve no admission of liability	Court provisionally certified the settlement class under Rule 23(a) and (b)(3) for settlement purposes
Adequacy of notice plan	Postcard notice to last-known addresses plus long-form notice online is best practicable notice and explains claims, opt-out, and procedures	Agreed to administered notice by JND; defendants to fund administration	Notice plan approved as satisfying Rule 23(c)(2) and due process requirements
Reasonableness and allocation of relief	Warranty extension and scaled monetary relief fairly compensate class members in proportion to harm	Settlement provides relief without admitting wrongdoing; avoids protracted litigation	Court found relief allocation fair and within range of reasonableness for preliminary approval

Key Cases Cited

Girsh v. Jepson, 521 F.2d 153 (3d Cir. 1975) (factors for evaluating fairness of class action settlements)
Amchem Prods., Inc. v. Windsor, 521 U.S. 591 (1997) (standards on class certification, predominance, manageability)
In re NFL Players Concussion Injury Litig., 821 F.3d 410 (3d Cir. 2016) (discussion of defendant’s ability to pay in settlement context)
In re Pet Food Prods. Liability Litig., 629 F.3d 333 (3d Cir. 2010) (requirements for certifying settlement-only classes)
In re Hydrogen Peroxide Antitrust Litig., 552 F.3d 305 (3d Cir. 2008) (burden of proof for class certification; district court’s factual inquiries)
Bogosian v. Gulf Oil Corp., 561 F.2d 434 (3d Cir. 1977) (individual damages calculations do not preclude class certification when liability issues predominate)
Stewart v. Abraham, 275 F.3d 220 (3d Cir. 2001) (numerosity presumption for large classes)
In re Prudential Ins. Co. Am. Sales Practice Litig. Agent Actions, 148 F.3d 283 (3d Cir. 1998) (commonality and adequacy principles in class actions)
Zimmer Paper Prods., Inc. v. Berger & Montague, 758 F.2d 86 (3d Cir. 1985) (notice standard subject to due process)
Mullane v. Central Hanover Bank & Trust Co., 339 U.S. 306 (1950) (due process notice requirements)
In re Diet Drugs, 369 F.3d 293 (3d Cir. 2004) (notice must describe settlement details and opt-out consequences)
Sheinberg v. Sorensen, 606 F.3d 130 (3d Cir. 2010) (factors for evaluating adequacy of class counsel)
Danvers Motor Co. v. Ford Motor Co., 543 F.3d 141 (3d Cir. 2008) (predominance inquiry under Rule 23(b)(3))