Amended Settlement in Klee v. Nissan

[mwalsh]

He's British so he speaks in a rambling not concise manner

Oy! A bit racist!

We're not all fucking Hugh Grant.

:lol:

Better put a smiley in there, so you know I'm not serious. Though I am, a bit.

 

[dhanson865]

He's British so he speaks in a rambling not concise manner

Oy! A bit racist!

We're not all fucking Hugh Grant.

:lol:

Better put a smiley in there, so you know I'm not serious. Though I am, a bit.

I'm not sure how Hugh Grant talks, I was thinking more Robert Llewellyn. Not objectionable, just inefficient.

 

[mwalsh]

The plaintiffs, Nissan, and the objectors -- including Judge Kozinski -- have reached an agreement to amend the original settlement agreement. The agreement still needs to be reduced to writing and submitted to the judge for approval.

Here is a copy of the actual Request to Lift Stay:

https://www.dropbox.com/s/a03qgppnd5o3uj3/122%20-%20Joint%20REQUEST%20to%20Lift%20Stay.pdf?dl=0" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

An order granting the request was made by Judge Tashima the next day.

 

[Valdemar]

Here is a copy of the actual Request to Lift Stay:

https://www.dropbox.com/s/a03qgppnd5o3uj3/122%20-%20Joint%20REQUEST%20to%20Lift%20Stay.pdf?dl=0" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

An order granting the request was made by Judge Tashima the next day.

Thanks.

Once the stay is lifted, the parties in tend to submit the proposed opt-out notice and a proposed schedule for presenting the Settlement, as amended, to the Court for approval, including the deadline to file a renewed motion for final approval of class action settlement and related briefing

I moved since the original mailer, how to I make sure they have my new address on file? I did update Carwings, but I suspect it is not where they get the addresses from for the opt-out notices.

 

[mwalsh]

I moved since the original mailer, how to I make sure they have my new address on file? I did update Carwings, but I suspect it is not where they get the addresses from for the opt-out notices.

I would imagine (though I'm just guessing) that the default action would be opt-in again by inactivity, just as it was with the original. If you intend to opt-out again, I can't imagine the new opt-out notice won't be posted here in it's entirety. So I wouldn't worry about whether or not you get a mailed copy. Getting any settlement mailings however (settlement checks/No Charge to Charge cards, etc...) will be an entirely different story, and you'll have to make sure, somehow, they know your new mailing address, but I wouldn't necessarily worry about that bridge until you need to cross it.

 

[Valdemar]

I moved since the original mailer, how to I make sure they have my new address on file? I did update Carwings, but I suspect it is not where they get the addresses from for the opt-out notices.

I would imagine (though I'm just guessing) that the default action would be opt-in again by inactivity, just as it was with the original. If you intend to opt-out again, I can't imagine the new opt-out notice won't be posted here in it's entirety. So I wouldn't worry about whether or not you get a mailed copy of the new notice. Getting any settlement mailings however (settlement checks/No Charge to Charge cards, etc...) will be an entirely different story, and you'll have to make sure, somehow, they know your new mailing address, but I wouldn't necessarily worry about that bridge until you need to cross it.

Thanks, I plan to opt-out.

 

[mwalsh]

Thanks, I plan to opt-out.

________________
'11 SL
-1CB@33k/21mo,
-2CB@53k/33mo,
66k miles and counting.

Ah, I didn't see your SIG. I guess so!

 

[leafkabob]

Here is a copy of the actual Request to Lift Stay:

https://www.dropbox.com/s/a03qgppnd5o3uj3/122%20-%20Joint%20REQUEST%20to%20Lift%20Stay.pdf?dl=0" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

An order granting the request was made by Judge Tashima the next day.

Thanks.

Once the stay is lifted, the parties in tend to submit the proposed opt-out notice and a proposed schedule for presenting the Settlement, as amended, to the Court for approval, including the deadline to file a renewed motion for final approval of class action settlement and related briefing

I moved since the original mailer, how to I make sure they have my new address on file? I did update Carwings, but I suspect it is not where they get the addresses from for the opt-out notices.

I was looking for the web site of the administrator of the class action and ran across this web site of the law firm that represented the two plaintiffs: http://classaction.kccllc.net/content.aspx?c=5619&sh=1
On that page you will find some interesting links, including this one, http://classaction.kccllc.net/Docum...on for Attorneys' Fees JL Final Conformed.pdf to the Declaration of Jordan Lurie. Paragraph 26 includes a detailed description of the process they intend to go through to track down class members.

26. Under the Notice plan, Nissan will provide the Settlement
Administrator, Kurtzman Carson Consultants LLC, with Vehicle Identification
Numbers of all Class Vehicles, from NNA’s own databases. Using this Vehicle
Identification Number information, the Settlement Administrator will obtain
address data for the Settlement Class from a third-party, such as R.L. Polk, that
maintains databases related to the automobile industry and which specializes in
obtaining such information from, inter alia, the Departments of Motor Vehicles
of all 50 States in the United States and its territories, including Puerto Rico.
The Settlement Administrator will review the address data provided by NNA
and/or any third-party vendor, check addresses for validity, eliminate
duplications and process the addresses through the National Change of Address
database for the purpose of updating the addresses. The Settlement Administrator
shall utilize skip-trace or other searches, in addition to the United States Postal
Service to attempt, on a one-time basis, to secure updated addresses for any
Settlement Class Member whose Notice is returned as undeliverable and resend
the Notice to the updated address.

That document was filed in 2013 but the process is likely to be the same when this thing is finally concluded.

Some of the other documents on the page include the Declaration of Colin Johns, an accountant hired by plaintiffs, who estimates the value of the original settlement (not the amended settlement discussed in this thread) to be upwards of $200 million, if all class vehicles require a battery replacement.

16. If all Class Vehicles require a battery replacement the total maximum value of the settlement would be $206,326,800 (18,588 * $11,100).

The accountant also estimated the value of a new battery to be $9,600 and $1,500 to install.

12. The most recent information that I reviewed was an article
published in June 2013 discussing projected reductions in the cost of these
batteries. Based on this article the cost of the Lithium-ion battery used in the
Nissan Leaf was expected to have come down from $18,000 in 20101 to $9,600
in 2013?
13. I have used the $9,600 estimate of the battery cost in my analysis.
14. In addition to the cost ofthe battery itself, there are also labor costs
associated with the repair and/or replacement of the battery. These have been
estimated at $1,500 based on the reimbursable cost to dealers as detailed in
Nissan Claims Information Bulletin WBI/13-015, dated May 30, 2013
{NNA004167}.

Another Declaration by a Nissan official estimates the total value of the original settlement (not the amended settlement) to be at least $10 million.

All interesting reading. My apologies if these docs were previously discussed or linked to.

 

[TimLee]

Too bad I didn't opt out, had other priorities at the time and it slipped through the cracks. Does it mean I shouldn't even try small claims court?

I suspect you'll have another opportunity given the new settlement.

Sounds too easy, but I won't miss the opportunity this time if this actually happens.

The request to lift the stay indicates that those that validly Opted Out will be given an opportunity to Opt Back In to the revised settlement.

It does not indicate that those that failed to Opt Out will be given another chance to Opt Out.

If your battery is showing several weak cells under CVLI test, may be better to pursue claim under original 8 year / 100,000 mile defects warranty.

 

[Valdemar]

A new opt out notice is mentioned in the quote I pasted above. I guess we just have to wait and see.

 

[mwalsh]

All interesting reading. My apologies if these docs were previously discussed or linked to.

I really don't think they have. Good find! Thanks!

I think $1500 is too high for the replacement labor. My own "worst case" guess has always been around $1000, but the book time on pack R&R is supposedly 3-4 hours (IIRC), so that would be $300-500 based on local labor rates here. I'm going to ask when I go in for my service appointment on Monday.

Of course, if you look at the annual battery check cost thread, labor rates are all ove the place for it, from around $30 on the low end to $120 at the most stealiest of the stealerships! So it wouldn't surprise me in the least to hear of some dealers charging $1500 (or more!) for this service.

 

[mwalsh]

Urgh! I've just found something in that filing that is just horrible, and I'm glad it's been addressed in the amended settlement. I can't cut and paste from a .pdf on my iPad, but it's essentially that the warranty as it originally stood only called for restoration to above 9 bars, and could be by any means necessary between replacing bad cells, fitting a refurbished pack, or fitting a new pack (page 11). We all knew that. A bit earlier in the document (page 7), it says that "in essence, the new battery warranty upholds it's (Nissan's) promise of no more than 10-20% battery capacity loss over the first 5 years...". Except that would only be 1 capacity bar loss, approaching 2, not "above 9 bars" as the original settlement had offered in it's worst cases. This is addressed a little bit on page 9, in which it says that plaintiffs' attorneys had asked Nissan why only 9 bars and received a response, but we don't hear what that response was in the filing.

Aside from this, there is another doozy on page 9, with a senior Nissan manager under oath saying that it would be nearly "impossible for a dealer technician to manipulate the vehicle's battery capacity gauge or install a new program that would show a different battery capacity than that of the vehicle's actual battery"! Well, we all know that's not true, even if resetting it is only temporary. Six months is plenty of time to get out of giving someone warranty coverage!

I really don't know why I didn't pay more attention to this filing. I probably should have.

 

[leafkabob]

Aside from this, there is another doozy on page 9, with a senior Nissan manager under oath saying that it would be nearly "impossible for a dealer technician to manipulate the vehicle's battery capacity gauge or install a new program that would show a different battery capacity than that of the vehicle's actual battery"! Well, we all know that's not true, even if resetting it is only temporary. Six months is plenty of time to get out of giving someone warranty coverage!

I really don't know why I didn't pay more attention to this filing. I probably should have.

Here is that quote. The person saying it is the lawyer for plaintiffs. Of course he wants to assure the court that manipulation can't occur. You'll notice that a Nissan rep is not making the statement in a sworn declaration.

20. Plaintiffs’ Counsel also undertook a rigorous analysis of the
Settlement’s responsiveness to Class Members’ concerns about the LEAF battery
life as expressed on blogs and in Internet message boards. For example, Class
Members were concerned about manipulation of the battery capacity gauge by
dealers or third parties to avoid the capacity warranty. To that end, Plaintiffs’
Counsel sought and obtained a detailed declaration under oath from a senior
manager responsible for the Nissan LEAF who concluded that it would be nearly
“impossible for a dealer technician to manipulate the vehicle’s battery capacity
gauge or to install a new program that would show a different battery capacity
than that of the vehicle’s actual battery.”

 

[mwalsh]

It does say he was "under oath", which reminds me of a favorite HIMYM exchange between Ted and Barney:

Ted: Did we take an oath? Do you even know what an oath is?
Barney: Uh, yeah. Courthouse, (points above him) oath. We're under it.

Oh, and note the word "nearly", which for some odd reason does not appear in the quote from the statement made "under oath", which could be for exactly what you surmise - that they want it to appear that it can't occur rather that it "nearly" can't occur. :lol:

 

[TimLee]

A new opt out notice is mentioned in the quote I pasted above. I guess we just have to wait and see.

But the quote is Mike's guess.
The 08Jan2015 filing to lift the stay only indicates the new Opt Out option is for those that validly Opted Out before.

Of course, the court could elect to make it an option for everyone, instead of what the plaintiffs, Nissan, and the objectors have asked for in the filing to lift the stay.

 

[mwalsh]

Of course, the court could elect to make it an option for everyone, instead of what the plaintiffs, Nissan, and the objectors have asked for in the filing to lift the stay.

Now that it looks like we'll all be opting back in (or most of us), it's no skin off my nose to admit that (once I'd heard out about B0133) I started to evaluate my opt-out letter and decided in my own head that it was legally insufficient (technically) - the original settlement notice called for a number of things in an opt-out letter, once of which was a full legal name. In my letter I omitted my middle name. Ergo: not my full legal name. I also put the mileage at date of my mailing the opt-out rather than the mileage at receipt of the settlement letter, which wouldn't have been hard to prove but would maybe be a bit further down the "clutching at straws" pathway than I could reasonably argue.

 

[edatoakrun]

Urgh! ...

it says that "in essence, the new battery warranty upholds it's (Nissan's) promise of no more than 10-20% battery capacity loss over the first 5 years...". Except that would only be 1 capacity bar loss, approaching 2, not "above 9 bars" as the original settlement had offered in it's worst cases...

Sounds like our attorney may be a little confused, as are many LEAF owners...

All Nissan has ever said in writing (AFAIK) about what percentage of capacity the bars represent is repeated on p. 8:

...Nissan determined to restore capacity to only 9 bars (or
approximately 70% capacity)...

I don't think Nissan is likely to say much more, as its primary goal in settling this case seems to be to never have to reveal actual capacity loss data.

Edit- deleted my previous additional comment.

I was confused myself by the various proposed settlement documents.

So when should we be able to see the final amended terms?

 

[91040]

The original service manual had a chart that listed the capacity loss range indicated by each capacity bar. That chart was removed in a later revision. Though I do not have a copy of it, it was posted on this forum and surely there are forum members who have it.

 

[mwalsh]

The original service manual had a chart that listed the capacity loss range indicated by each capacity bar. That chart was removed in a later revision. Though I do not have a copy of it, it was posted on this forum and surely there are forum members who have it.

Oh, you mean this one?

 

[TimLee]

^^^Which Nissan executives confirmed at the August 2013 dinner in Phoenix.