SALCEDO v. SUBARU OF AMERICA, INC.
1:17-cv-08173
D.N.J.Jun 5, 2019Check TreatmentDocket
Case 1:17-cv-08173-JHR-AMD Document46 Filed 06/05/19 Page 1 of 8 PagelID: 723
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF NEW JERSEY
VICENTE SALCEDO, GERALD LINDEN,] No. 1:17-cv-08173-JHR-AMD
and BRIAN MERVIN, individually and on
behalf of all others similarly situated,
CLASS ACTION
Plaintiffs,
VS.
SUBARU OF AMERICA, INC., a New
Jersey Corporation, and
SUBARU CORPORATION, a Japanese
Corporation,
Defendants.
ORDER GRANTING FINAL APPROVAL OF CLASS ACTION
SETTLEMENT
WHEREAS, this matter has come before the Court pursuant to Plaintiffs’
Unopposed Motion for an Order Granting Final Approval of Class Action
Settlement and Certifying a Settlement Class (the “Motion”);
WHEREAS, the Court finds that it has jurisdiction of this Action;
WHEREAS, on September 28, 2018, this Court granted Plaintiffs’ Motion
for Preliminary Approval of the Class Action Settlement (the “Preliminary
Approval Order”);!
' Capitalized terms that are not otherwise defined herein are defined in the
Settlement Agreement.
Case 1:17-cv-08173-JHR-AMD Document 46 Filed 06/05/19 Page 2 of 8 PagelD: 724
WHEREAS, the Settlement Class conditionally certified in the Preliminary
Approval Order has been appropriately certified for settlement purposes only;
WHEREAS, the Court held a hearing on June 5, 2019 to consider the
fairness, reasonableness, and adequacy of the Settlement Agreement, has been
advised of all objections to the settlement, and has given fair consideration to all
objections;
WHEREAS, the Court has considered the Motion, the Settlement
Agreement (including its exhibits), and objections to the proposed settlement; and
WHEREAS, the Court otherwise fully advised in the premises and has
considered the record of these proceedings, the representations, arguments, and
recommendations of counsel for the parties, and the reapirements [ law.
NOW, THEREFORE, IT IS ON THIS DAY OF \\awme :
2019, ORDERED THAT:
l. The terms of the Settlement Agreement are approved. The settlement
is in all respects fair, reasonable, adequate, and proper, and in the best interest of
the Settlement Class. In reaching this conclusion, the Court has considered a
number of factors, including an assessment of the likelihood that the Class
Representatives would prevail at trial; the range of possible recovery; the
consideration provided to Settlement Class Members as compared to the range of
possible recovery discounted for the inherent risks of litigation; the complexity,
Case 1:17-cv-08173-JHR-AMD Document 46 Filed 06/05/19 Page 3 of 8 PagelID: 725
expense, and possible duration of litigation in the absence of a settlement; the
nature and extent of any objections to the settlement; and the stage of proceedings
at which the settlement was reached. The proposed settlement was entered into by
experienced counsel and only after extensive arms’-length negotiations. The
proposed settlement is not the result of collusion. It was entered into in good faith,
is reasonable, fair, and adequate, and is in the best interest of the Settlement Class.
Class Counsel and the Class Representatives have fairly and adequately
represented the Settlement Class.
2. Consistent with its Preliminary Approval Order, the Court hereby grants
class certification of the following Settlement Class for purposes of final approval:
All residents of the continental] United States who currently
own or lease, or previously owned or leased, a Settlement
Class Vehicle originally purchased or leased in the
continental United States, including Alaska. Excluded from
the Settlement Class are SOA, SBR, SOA’s employees,
SBR’s employees, employees of SOA’s and/or SBR’s
affiliated companies, SOA’s and SBR’s officers and
directors, dealers that currently own Settlement Class
Vehicles, all entities claiming to be subrogated to the rights
of Settlement Class Members, issuers of extended vehicle
warranties, and any Judge to whom the Litigation is
assigned.
3. With respect to the proposed Settlement Class, this Court has determined
that, for purposes of settlement of the Action only, Plaintiffs have satisfied each of
the Rule 23(a) prerequisites.
Case 1:17-cv-08173-JHR-AMD Document46 Filed 06/05/19 Page 4 of 8 PagelD: 726
a. The Class Members are so numerous that joinder of all members is
impracticable. Fed. R. Civ. P. 23(a)(1).
b. There are questions of law or fact common to the Settlement Class.
Fed. R. Civ, P. 23(a)(2). Common questions of law or fact include: (1) whether
the Settlement Class Vehicles were subject to a common design defect; (2)
whether Subaru failed to adequately disclose material facts related to the
Settlement Class Vehicles prior to sale; (3} whether Subaru’s conduct was
unlawful; and (4) how any resulting monetary damages to consumers should be
calculated.
c. The claims of the Class Representatives are typical of the claims of
the Settlement Class. Fed. R. Civ. P. 23{a)(3). They have alleged that Subaru
sold defective vehicles and failed to disclose (or to adequately disclose)
material facts to all members of the Settlement Class.
d. The Class Representatives have fairly and adequately protected the
interests of the Settlement Class. Fed. R. Civ. P. 23(a)(4). The Class
Representatives do not have interests that are antagonistic to the Settlement
Class and are fully aligned with the interests of other Settlement Class
Members. Accordingly, the Court finds that the Class Representatives have
satisfied Rule 23(a) for purposes of evaluating the settlement.
Case 1:17-cv-08173-JHR-AMD Document 46 Filed 06/05/19 Page 5 of 8 PagelID: 727
4, The Court also “finds that the questions of law or fact common to
class members predominate over any questions affecting only individual
members,” and that “a class action is superior to other available methods for fairly
and efficiently adjudicating the controversy.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 23(b)(3). Here,
Settlement Class Members share a common legal grievance arising from Subaru’s
alleged failure to disclose or adequately disclose material facts about the
Settlement Class Vehicles’ engines. Common legal and factual questions
predominate over any individual questions that may exist for purposes of this
settlement, and the fact that the Parties are able to resolve the case on terms
applicable to all Settlement Class Members underscores the predominance of
common legal and factual questions for purposes of this settlement. In concluding
that the Settlement Class should be certified pursuant to Rule 23(b)(3) for
settlement purposes, the Court further finds that a class action is superior for
purposes of resolving these claims because individual class members have not
shown any interest in individually controlling the prosecution of separate actions.
Moreover, the cost of litigation likely outpaces the individual recovery availableto
any Settlement Class Members. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 23(b)(3)(A). Accordingly, the
Court finds that, for purposes of this settlement, Rule 23(b)(3) has also been
satisfied.
Case 1:17-cv-08173-JHR-AMD Document 46 Filed 06/05/19 Page 6 of 8 PagelD: 728
5. The Court finds that the notice program (i) satisfied the requirements
of Rule 23(c)(3) and due process; (i!) was the best practicable notice under the
circumstances; (111) reasonably apprised Settlement Class Members of the
pendency of the action and their right to object to the proposed settlement or opt
out of the Settlement Class; and (iv) was reasonable and constituted due, adequate,
and sufficient notice to all those entitled to receive notice. Additionally, the Notice
adequately informed Settlement Class Members of their rights in the Action. Fed.
R. Civ. P. 23(c)(2).
6. The Court hereby enters a judgment of dismissal, pursuant to Fed. R.
Civ. P. 54(b), of the claims by the Settlement Class Members, with prejudice and
without costs, except as specified in this order, and except as provided in the
Court’s order related to Plaintiffs’ motion for attorneys’ fees, expenses, and
incentive awards. The Clerk of Court is directed to close this docket.
7. Pursuant to the Settlement Agreement, the Class Representatives and
Settlement Class Members forever release, discharge, and covenant not to sue the
Released Parties regarding any of the Released Claims. With respect to all
Released Claims, the Class Representatives and the Settlement Class Members
expressly waive and relinquish the Released Claims to the fullest extent permitted
by law. These releases apply even if the Class Representatives or Settlement Class
Case 1:17-cv-08173-JHR-AMD Document 46 Filed 06/05/19 Page 7 of 8 PagelD: 729
Members subsequently discover facts in addition to or different from those which
they now know or believe to be true.
8. A list of Settlement Class Members who have timely elected to opt
out of the Settlement Class, and who therefore are not bound by the settlement or
this Order, is attached to this Order as Exhibit A. All other members of the
Settlement Class shall be subject to all of the provisions of the Settlement
Agreement and this Order.
9. The Court has considered each of the objections, finds that they are
unpersuasive and therefore overrules all of them.
10. Without any way affecting the finality of this Order, the Court retains
jurisdiction over the Parties, including all Settlement Class Members, to construe
and enforce the settlement for the mutual benefit of the Parties. The Court retains
jurisdiction to enter any orders necessary or appropriate in implementing the
Settlement Agreement, including but not limited to orders enjoining Settlement
Class Members from prosecuting Released Claims. Consistent with the Settlement
Agreement, it is further ordered that Settlement Class Members are permanently
barred from initiating, asserting, or prosecuting any Released Claims against any of
the Released Persons in any federal or state court in the United States or any other
tribunal.
Case 1:17-cv-08173-JHR-AMD Document 46 Filed 06/05/19 Page 8 of 8 PagelD: 730
H awe rabl