Ahearn v. Hyundai Motor America, No. 15-56014 (9th Cir. 2019)

Court Description: Class Action / Attorneys’ Fees. The en banc court affirmed the district court’s orders and judgment certifying a nationwide settlement class, approving a settlement, and awarding attorneys’ fees in a multidistrict litigation brought against Hyundai Motor America and Kia Motors America regarding alleged misrepresentations about their vehicles’ fuel economy. Objectors challenged the certification order and fee awards on various grounds, and the en banc court found none of them persuasive. Concerning the objectors’ challenge to the district court’s findings regarding the predominance of common factual or legal issues under Fed. R. Civ. P. 23(b)(3), the en banc court held that the district court did not abuse its discretion in finding that common issues predominated. Specifically, the en banc court held that: the inclusion of used car purchasers in the class did not defeat predominance; variations in state law did not defeat predominance; objectors failed to meet their burden of showing that California law did not apply; and application of California law satisfied due process. The en banc court rejected the objectors’ challenges to the adequacy of class counsel. 20 IN RE HYUNDAI AND KIA FUEL ECON. LITIG. Concerning the objectors’ challenges to the settlement approval, the en banc court held that: the notice to class members provided sufficient information; the claim forms were not overly burdensome; and there was no evidence of collusion between class counsel and the automakers. The en banc court held that the district court properly exercised its discretion in calculating the fee award using the lodestar method. The en banc court held that the district court did not abuse its discretion in denying fees to objector’s counsel James Feinman because he did not meaningfully contribute to the class settlement. Judge Ikuta dissented because she would hold that the district court certified a multistate class action under Fed. R. Civ. P. 23 without determining what law applied to the plaintiffs’ claims, in violation of Rule 23 and Supreme Court precedent, Amchem Prods., Inc. v. Windsor, 521 U.S. 591 (1997). Judge Ikuta also stated that the majority erred in upholding the district court's award of attorneys’ fees, because the district court failed to determine the value of the benefit the class derived from the settlement. IN RE HYUNDAI AND KIA FUEL ECON. LITIG. 21

This opinion or order relates to an opinion or order originally issued on January 23, 2018.