Form Letter to "Opt Out" of the Nissan Class Action by Oct28

[uwskier20]

Thanks for the update, Your Honor. Although I opted out, I've been anxious to get an update on this. 60,000 miles isn't that far away for me anymore, and I'm hoping for greater relief than the SYB (steal-your-battery) program might offer.

I wonder if it would be delegated to a court in the Tenth Circuit, since that's closest geographically.

 

[tokenride]

Not a huge surprise, I guess, but the second judge in the case has now recused herself, because of Kozinski's position:

"Before the Court is the parties’ Motion for Final Approval of Class Action Settlement and
Motion for Attorneys’ Fees. (Dkt. Nos. 66, 46). On November 18, 2013, the parties appeared
before the Court seeking final approval of their negotiated settlement. In addition, an objector to the settlement appeared, after having previously filed a brief objecting to the settlement. The Objector, although appearing in his personal capacity serves as the Chief Judge of the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals. In his professional capacity, the Objector sits on panels that decide appeals from this court, makes decisions regarding sitting by designation on the court of appeals, and reviews complaints of judicial misconduct involving district judges within the circuit. See 28 U.S.C. §§ 292, 352. The Objector has filed briefs and appeared in court, objecting to the proposed settlement. The question arises whether this Court should recuse itself.

Canon 3C(1) of the Code of Conduct for United States Judges requires a judge to recuse
herself “in a proceeding in which the judge’s impartiality might reasonably be questioned.”
Canon 3C’s language mirrors the language of the recusal statute, 28 U.S.C. § 455. The Court
concludes that a reasonable person might question this Court’s impartiality in deciding the issue. For example, if the Court were to disapprove the settlement, a reasonable person might question whether the Court’s actions were a result of the Objector’s participation in the lawsuit. If the Court were to approve the final settlement, a reasonable person might question whether the Court was favoring the other side. This, as a result, implicates Canon 3C. Accordingly, the
Court hereby RECUSES itself."

The case will now be reassigned to another judge, although it may have to go to a judge outside of the jurisdiction of the Ninth Circuit. In any event, the settlement isn't going to be approved --or rejected -- anytime soon.

AND THE PLOT THICKENS :|

Any word on how long this could take...a year...more or less??

 

[sdbonez]

It's going to get real interesting here real fast as the first owners hit their 3 year marks. I'm 5 weeks out myself, opt'd out, and cited most of the same issues in the objection.

..and my battery's in sad shape (not sad enough under my new warranty, though) and I don't intend to wait for this class action to resolve (maybe I'll have to take a number?). But I'll give NNA a chance to make it right first even if I'm not optimistic that path will work.

Assuming they move the case, all of Washington, Idaho, Montana, Nevada, Oregon, and California are under the 9th - my vote is they move it to Arizona so that a few more new class reps step forward

 

[TomT]

A week for me...

It's going to get real interesting here real fast as the first owners hit their 3 year marks. I'm 5 weeks out myself, opt'd out, and cited most of the same issues in the objection.

 

[KJD]

It's going to get real interesting here real fast as the first owners hit their 3 year marks. I'm 5 weeks out myself, opt'd out, and cited most of the same issues in the objection.

OK stupid question maybe. What is the significance of 3 year mark vs any other time frame like say 5 year mark.

 

[sdbonez]

It's going to get real interesting here real fast as the first owners hit their 3 year marks. I'm 5 weeks out myself, opt'd out, and cited most of the same issues in the objection.

OK stupid question maybe. What is the significance of 3 year mark vs any other time frame like say 5 year mark.

A few reasons for me:

• I want to be free and clear of any of my state/federal rebate obligations with respect to term of ownership - with no room for confusion.
  I'll have a 3yr battery report (which will be terrible)
  I'll have my 3yr anniversary OBDII GID readings
  I'll have 3 years of hand-written notes showing battery degradation over time along the same commute
  I think having people coming off of their leases will further decrease my resale value (which may harm me further)

5 years is important, too - because I'm still supposed to have 80% of my capacity left come that time. (rofl)

 

[uwskier20]

Lost my first bar a couple weeks ago. I'm at 49,000 miles, just shy of 85% capacity, and will hit my 3-year in May. According to the battery aging model, I should hit 80% in the late summer or autumn, well before five years - and that's in a moderate maritime climate coupled with a pretty diligent effort toward babying the battery.

Last spring, I was singing Nissan's praises, as I was still at 96% capacity after two years. The summer saw a very precipitous drop. I guess it was fortuitous that it occurred in time for me to see that the settlement would be unsatisfactory, and that prompted me to opt-out and urge others in Seattle to do the same.

My hope is still that NNA makes this right, particularly to the early adoption crowd, as I and many others personally stumped for others to buy or lease the LEAF. I believe the success of the early LEAF cohort was their best advertisement.

 

[DaveEV]

Lost my first bar a couple weeks ago. I'm at 49,000 miles, just shy of 85% capacity, and will hit my 3-year in May. According to the battery aging model, I should hit 80% in the late summer or autumn, well before five years - and that's in a moderate maritime climate coupled with a pretty diligent effort toward babying the battery.

To be fair, you are putting on a lot more miles than average, so you can't just use calendar time as a guideline for capacity loss.

Otherwise, I'm just as disappointed in range coming up on three years now. A 100% charge now only gets the same range as what a 80% charge used to get.

 

[Anonymous]

Does anyone know of any updates here? The last letter I received last week said that the lawyers argued against all of the objections and that only 'objectors' will be able to enter into mediation, but would have to pay the lawyers anyway? I am not a lawyer and am unsure if I am reading this last notice correctly.....anyone care to elaborate at all on this? Thanks for any and all credible information.

 

[EVDRIVER]

It's going to get real interesting here real fast as the first owners hit their 3 year marks. I'm 5 weeks out myself, opt'd out, and cited most of the same issues in the objection.

OK stupid question maybe. What is the significance of 3 year mark vs any other time frame like say 5 year mark.

A few reasons for me:

• I want to be free and clear of any of my state/federal rebate obligations with respect to term of ownership - with no room for confusion.
  I'll have a 3yr battery report (which will be terrible)
  I'll have my 3yr anniversary OBDII GID readings
  I'll have 3 years of hand-written notes showing battery degradation over time along the same commute
  I think having people coming off of their leases will further decrease my resale value (which may harm me further)

5 years is important, too - because I'm still supposed to have 80% of my capacity left come that time. (rofl)

What exactly is a "federal rebate obligation"? There is no time obligation related to a federal credit.

 

[oakwcj]

Nissan has apparently agreed to try to mediate a resolution to the case with the plaintiffs and the objectors, including Judge Kozinski:

http://www.topclassactions.com/lawsuit-settlements/lawsuit-news/24087-nissan-mediate-judge-opposed-leaf-class-action-settlement/" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

I assume that this means that Nissan is open to the concept of amending the settlement agreement to satisfy the objectors. The "new" judge in the case -- A. Wallace Tashima -- is actually an 80 year-old retired judge. I have no idea what his relationship with Kozinski is like. As Judge Tashima has noted, it seems rather odd to have a mediation about a settlement approval, but that doesn't mean it isn't worth trying.

 

[uwskier20]

I spoke with another owner in the Seattle area who had also opted out. When going in for service recently, his service adviser called attention to the fact that Nissan had removed the battery capacity warranty from his LEAF (it showed up on the service record). I was a bit surprised to see this happening (but perhaps shouldn't be), but haven't contacted my own dealer yet. Has anybody else who might have opted out observed this?

 

[mwalsh]

I spoke with another owner in the Seattle area who had also opted out. When going in for service recently, his service adviser called attention to the fact that Nissan had removed the battery capacity warranty from his LEAF (it showed up on the service record). I was a bit surprised to see this happening (but perhaps shouldn't be), but haven't contacted my own dealer yet. Has anybody else who might have opted out observed this?

Then it will definitely be time for another lawsuit. I can't imagine that Nissan wants to keep litigating this thing over and over again.

 

[mwalsh]

I'm told (by a source I have confidence in) that there is no official policy of exclusion except for vehicles having salvage titles.

 

[uwskier20]

I'm told (by a source I have confidence in) that there is no official policy of exclusion except for vehicles having salvage titles.

Interesting. Yes, I had figured that I would have heard something if anybody else had lost their capacity coverage. I think he's going to seek clarification from his dealership. I also provided him the link to this thread, and think he may be a member here already, so he might have more details or clarifications.

 

[EVDRIVER]

I spoke with another owner in the Seattle area who had also opted out. When going in for service recently, his service adviser called attention to the fact that Nissan had removed the battery capacity warranty from his LEAF (it showed up on the service record). I was a bit surprised to see this happening (but perhaps shouldn't be), but haven't contacted my own dealer yet. Has anybody else who might have opted out observed this?

Third party info from a dealer seems very unreliable. Nissan would directly notify customers if this were true. Besides service advisers are often clueless about what they read and say.

 

[TomT]

It would be pretty hard (and legally very questionable) to retract something that they had already given you in writing (the extended warranty form and owner's manual addendum we all received)......

Then it will definitely be time for another lawsuit. I can't imagine that Nissan wants to keep litigating this thing over and over again.

 

[Stoaty]

I spoke with another owner in the Seattle area who had also opted out. When going in for service recently, his service adviser called attention to the fact that Nissan had removed the battery capacity warranty from his LEAF (it showed up on the service record). I was a bit surprised to see this happening (but perhaps shouldn't be), but haven't contacted my own dealer yet. Has anybody else who might have opted out observed this?

If this were true (very doubtful), Nissan would likely find themselves a target of a second lawsuit by those of us who opted out... which would not be good PR.

 

[QueenBee]

I spoke with another owner in the Seattle area who had also opted out. When going in for service recently, his service adviser called attention to the fact that Nissan had removed the battery capacity warranty from his LEAF (it showed up on the service record). I was a bit surprised to see this happening (but perhaps shouldn't be), but haven't contacted my own dealer yet. Has anybody else who might have opted out observed this?

Third party info from a dealer seems very unreliable. Nissan would directly notify customers if this were true. Besides service advisers are often clueless about what they read and say.

It's not particularly third party when it's a print out from the their computer system which is pulling data from Nissan....

As to if the service advisor was clueless in what he read; it is true he had no idea why it was there. The only reason he could think of was if it had been in an accident.

I haven't had a chance to call Nissan yet to see what they say but I see three reasons: Sending in the opt out letter. Getting my 2nd year "EV Test"/battery check 9 months late. Random fluke/data error.

Specifically what the print out from "SERVICE-COMM" says is:
"VIN WARRANTY EXCLUSIONS ON PNC"
PNC: B0133
DESCRIPTION: NO EV BATT CAPACITY WARRANTY"

I have not been notified directly from Nissan about this and did not receive any response to my opt out letter.

 

[mwalsh]

I haven't had a chance to call Nissan yet to see what they say but I see three reasons: Sending in the opt out letter. Getting my 2nd year "EV Test"/battery check 9 months late. Random fluke/data error.

Specifically what the print out from "SERVICE-COMM" says is:
"VIN WARRANTY EXCLUSIONS ON PNC"
PNC: B0133
DESCRIPTION: NO EV BATT CAPACITY WARRANTY"

I have not been notified directly from Nissan about this and did not receive any response to my opt out letter.

My money is on the late battery check. How on earth did you manage to be 9 months late??? The window for getting it done is either one or two months either side of your anniversary.