IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA SAN FRANCISCO DIVISION
December 14, 2011
CARIN AND GEORGE EDWIN MILLIGAN, ON BEHALF OF THEMSELVES AND ALL OTHERS SIMILARLY SITUATED, PLAINTIFFS,
TOYOTA MOTOR SALES, U.S.A., INC., ET AL., DEFENDANTS.
The opinion of the court was delivered by: Richard Seeborg United States District Judge
ORDER REQUESTING FURTHER BRIEFING
Pending before the Court are plaintiffs' motion for final approval of class settlement and 18 motion for attorneys' fees and reimbursement of expenses. To resolve several issues that were not 19 clarified at the hearing on plaintiffs' motions, the Court hereby requests joint, supplemental briefing 20 from the parties on the following questions: 21
1. Plaintiffs indicate that Toyota has entered into a memorandum of understanding (MOU) 22 with the California Air Resources Board (CARB), under which it "agreed to extend the 23 warranty for the affected vehicles from eight years/80,000 miles to ten years/150,000 24 miles and to reimburse reasonable replacement expenses to those [current Class Vehicle 25 owners or lessees] who had replaced an ECM or transmission within the extended 26 warranty period." Plaintiffs also state that, as of November 17, 2011, "Toyota has 27 processed a total of 4,319 reimbursement claims related to the ECM, paying out a total of $9,138,631.52." The factual questions to be addressed are: (A) how many of these reported, reimbursed claims were filed by current Class Vehicle owners and lessees 2 whose claims are covered by the terms of the CARB MOU? (B) How many of these 3 reported, reimbursed claims were filed by former Class vehicles owners and lessees 4 whose claims are not covered by the terms of the MOU, and would not be reimbursed, 5 but for the proposed settlement agreement in this case? An assessment in terms of dollar 6 figures, percentages, or any other good faith estimate, is acceptable.
7 2. According to the Conditional Third Amended Complaint, the named plaintiffs in this 8 case both purchased Class Vehicles and later replaced the allegedly defective component 9 at their own expense. Dkt. No. 55. At the time plaintiffs and Toyota entered into the 10 proposed class settlement: (A) were the named plaintiffs current or former owners of the Class Vehicle? (B) Are the claims for reimbursement advanced by the named plaintiffs covered by the CARB MOU, or not? For the Northern District of California 13 The parties are directed to file a joint, supplemental brief by December 22, 2011, that addresses 14 these limited issues in three (or fewer) written pages. Should the parties dispute the answers to 15 these limited questions, the brief should reflect both parties' positions.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
© 1992-2011 VersusLaw Inc.