[This article will contain excerpts from United States Central District Los Angeles class action case 2:13-ml-02424-GW-FFM  "the Hyundai-Kia fuel economy litigation" and also excerpts from related case Johnson v. Taylor, et al. case Central District Los Angeles CV-13-2264 FMO (MRW)]

The Class Action

[over 51 cases filed against Hyundai-Kia and consolidated]

[Remember that in a class action the attorneys may make millions of dollars in fees,                                while the plaintiffs may get thousands with the class members getting hundreds of dollars, if anything.        As an example, read the 294 page Toyota 2010 class action settlement: copy and paste link:]

http://www.toyotaelsettlement.com/pdf/SETTLEMENT%20AGREEMENT%20EXHIBITS.pdf.

[This news article is based on the December 23, 2013 Hyundai Kia class action motion in support of certification of settlement class. These documents were submitted by attorneys Hagans Berman Sobel and Shapiro LLP for the plaintiffs. While many newspapers reported this as the actual settlement, which was untrue,  some newspapers accurately submitted that this was only the proposed settlement subject to court approval. The court date for approval has been moved a number of times and the latest move sets the date for either March or April for court approval. Some believe that Hyundai Kia moved prematurely and to their disadvantage by falsely announcing the proposed settlement In December 2013.]

Hyundai vehicles affected are various model years Accent, Azera, Elantra, Genesis, Santa Fe Sport, Sonata, Tucson, and Veloster. Kia models affected various years are Optima, Rio, Sorento, Soul, and Sportage.

Based on the consolidation of over 51 lawsuits into United States Central District case In re Hyundai and Kia Fuel Economy Litigation ,  2:13 – ML – 02424 – GW .

[Another Hyundai lawsuit in the same district dismissed without prejudice Johnson versus Taylor, et al. against Hyundai, case 2:13-cv-02264-FMO-MRW, shows that the plaintiff alone may have received default entry judgment of over $85 million against Hyundai; its assumed that lawyers did not pursue that action because the action was filed by a pro se person and lawyers would not have gotten any fees from that lawsuit.]

Common issues of facts and law include the plaintiffs claims of CLRA (Consumer Legal Remedies Act) , false advertising , breach of express warranty, fraud and negligent representation, and unjust enrichment.

"Plaintiffs filed their class-action lawsuit to rectify deficiencies in the Reimbursement Program. The proposed settlement and does this by providing for lump some payment to class members, allowing for participation by multiple owners, Adding a dealer service credit, and implementing a new car rebate voucher....Further the settlement provide significant non-monetary benefits."

False advertising claim. "Plaintiffs allege that defendant's caused to be made or disseminated through California and the United States through advertising including TV, print, Internet, billboard, and other marketing materials, statements that were untrue or misleading, and which were known or which by exercising reasonable care should have been known by Defendants [Hyundai-Kia] to be untrue and misleading to consumers and plaintiffs."

Fraud and negligent – representation claims. "Defendants Hyundai had a duty to disclose the true fuel economy based on their superior knowledge and affirmative misrepresentations to the contrary...These misrepresentations were made with the intent to induce plaintiffs and class members into reliance thereon, causing them harm....".

Unjust enrichment. "Defendants charged a higher price for their vehicles," plaintiffs alleged, "than the vehicles' true value and obtained monies which rightfully belong to the Plaintiffs."

The 86 page or so Proposed Settlement

Options to car owners

debtor card expires in one year; or

dealer service card at 150% to be used at any authorized dealer expires in two years; or

new car rebate certificate valued at 200% of the cash debit card amount

The problems with the dealers

"The Parties acknowledge that each authorized Hyundai dealer and each authorized Kia dealer is owned and operated independently from HMA or KMA, respectively, and that neither HMA nor KMA has authority to direct any authorized Hyundai or Kia dealer to take any action pursuant to this Settlement Agreement."

"Promptly after the Effective Date of this Settlement Agreement (defined in

Section 14), HMA and KMA shall each request, in good faith, that their authorized dealers assist

Settlement Class Members who visit the dealer for the purpose of requesting a mileage check

pursuant to the Reimbursement Program, by providing such Settlement Class Members who

have not submitted a Claim Form with a flyer substantially in the form of Exhibit E. "

"HMA and KMA shall request that their authorized dealers provide such assistance until the deadline for the submission of Claim Forms."

[Editor: And what good is that if Hyundai-Kia has no authority to tell the dealer what to do but they certainly will keep shipping the dealers cars to sell to the unsuspecting public. So the dealer has no incentive to be honest with the public which is the same negligent representation that started this mess. One would wonder how does a dealer get to use the Hyundai-Kia name without there being some type of connection and agreement. A recent deposition of a dealer accounting manager shows the monthly financial reporting that dealers provide to Hyundai (Johnson v Taylor, et. al case, and a separate Central District bankruptcy case) And what is the purpose of that if Hyundai cannot tell the dealer what to do? This contradicts the Hyundai warranty which clearly states that car owners will get warranty service at no charge; no mention is made that the warranty is "optional" or "voluntary" and that car owners can be denied service or denied the benefits of the fuel mileage debit card. Even in the class action, Hyundai and its lawyers still appear to be engaged in deception, to the public's detriment.]

On January 30 2014, lawyers Girard Gibbs LLP filed with the Court the non-settling plaintiff's cases and positions regarding settlement, Document 211, filed by . Non-settling Plaintiffs, with a 19 page chart.

To summarize the response to the Hyundai-Kia proposed settlement

Eight plaintiffs support

Seven plaintiffs oppose

Eight plaintiffs submitted no response

Eight plaintiffs supported the proposal but with questions or objections

Some points of disagreement with proposed settlement stated in court papers

• Nothing in settlement that obligates defendants to continue the reimbursement program
• The claim form is too complicated
• Claim members should be able to submit their claim online and received a unique claim ID
• Expiration on the claim debit card should be raised from two years to four years
• There should be a claims email notice
• Funds should not be reverted back to Hyundai Kia if no one claims their debit card
• The proposed administration process is defective
• There is no provision for diminution of value of the vehicles [Editor: really the major one]
• The issue of legal fees has not been adequately addressed
• The proposal is without merit under Virginia law

       One attorney stated that the proposed agreement would afford $475 or less, despite the fact Alaska would allow for a minimum recovery of $500 while New Hampshire has a $1000 minimum on recovery for private actions.

      As a result, attorneys seek to have the Mar. 24 2014 motion date for court approval moved to April 10.

[Editor: Law firm Gibbs does not mention his knowledge of the Johnson v. Taylor case where there may be precedent and evidence that the Hyundai damages are worth thousands of dollars more than what the class action lawyers seek. Some say since class action lawyers may get millions of dollars in fees, there is no incentive for them to aggressively seek adequate dollar amounts for the class members, let alone the plaintiffs.]

Where to mail opposition to the proposed settlement  Hyundai Kia Fuel Economy Litigation:

Clerk of the court, United States District Court, Central District of California, Re: Hyundai Kia Fuel Economy Litigation, 255 East Temple St., Los Angeles, CA 90012–3332; Robert B Cary, class counsel, Hagans Berman Sobel Shapiro LLP, 11 West Jefferson St. Suite 1000, Phoenix, AZ 85003; Michael L Kidney, defense counsel, Hogan Lovells US LLP, 555 Thirteenth Street NW, Washington, DC 20004. State case number 2:13 – ML – 02424 – GW. Provide name address phone and car Vin number, if applicable.

• Hyundai Motor Finance is a part of the larger Hyundai Capital America, which is headquartered in Irvine, California and serves more than 1,500 dealers nationwide
• The Magnuson-Moss act does not authorize Hyundai to charge the debtor payments for services he has not received. Hyundai has failed to repair, refund, or replace Debtor’s vehicle.
• Cars for sale are shipped from Hyundai Motor America to the dealers. Hyundai can refuse to ship new cars to the dealers if there is non-performance of warranty work.
• Hyundai has not offered to repair, refund, or replace but instead continued to assert a claim to money despite knowing that there is non-performance by Hyundai of the retail agreement and warranty provisions.
• ...the debtor vehicle has been subject to eleven service bulletins and Hyundai mechanical problems in general but debtor has been denied inspection for those service bulletins.
• ….Hyundai will continue to inequitably deny warranty service to debtor in "perpetuity", such actions that debtor request this court take notice of to determine the value of the vehicle in question and a reduction in the HMF [Hyundai Motor Finance] claim
• ...Hyundai agent Don Quimby … saying, "We are under no obligation under Hyundai to service any vehicles for any customer ...".
• The Hyundai handbook warranty says very clearly that the car keeps its value only upon being serviced by authorized Hyundai technicians.
• Hyundai wants this court to participate in fraud on the court and violate debtor’s rights under the Constitution, Public Accommodation Unruh Act, and the Magnuson-Moss act.
• I would also fear for anyone’s safety who has to take their car to a Hyundai dealership for service.
• There is no way I can go to work and pay for the car and pay for the bankruptcy payments if I am sitting in jail as a result of Hyundai Motor Finances’s gestapo tactics.
• NHTSA checking 2006-2008 Hyundai Sonatas after reports of rusted suspension frames.
• NHTSA recall notice subject "crossmember corrosion may cause Loose Control Arm"
• NHTSA recall subject Hyundai-Kia: brake fluid may corrode brake module
• December 27 2011 Letter from N.J. Trustee Vanessa D. Taylor to Governor Chris Christie N.J. appointee Judge Walter Koprowski regarding property at 146-148 Fabyan Place, Newark, New Jersey. This letter has been copied to the Chapter 13 Trustee Nancy Curry.
• [Hyundai security guard Mar 30 2013 prevents Hyundai owner from getting free warranty inspection:]      "So that in addition to this, if you go past this point you will be arrested for trespassing."
• [March 30 2013 outside Hyundai dealership. Inglewood California Police Officer B. Sanza, under orders from Hyundai, preventing Hyundai owner from getting warranty service:]                            "I am letting you know that if you do return there [LA Hyundai at LAX] today, or anytime in the future, you will be taken to jail for trespassing. Do you understand?"

Editor:

Do you still

want to buy a Hyundai?

[Redacted]

Phoenix AZ 85003-2300

Michael L.  Kidney

Hogan Lovells US LLP

555 13th St. NW.

Washington DC 20004-1109

Re:

Hyundai and Kia Fuel Economy Litigation Case

TO THE COURT, PLAINTIFF AND DEFENDANT ATTORNEYS:

That Hyundai Motor America will close down the dealership "L.A. Hyundai at Lax", Inglewood California due to its denial of service to me;
 

(1) Transcript of voicemail from Don Quimby, denying service, dated August 15 2012 *

(2) Letter from Ric Middlekauff , denying service, dated March 28, 2013 *

(3) Letter from attorney Melanie Joo , denying service, dated March 29, 2013 *

(4) Letter from attorneys Tharpe & Howell, LLP , denying service, dated July 25, 2013 *

The Proposed Settlement agreement does not adequately address compensation to Hyundai-Kia vehicles for loss value to the vehicles. 

Lawyers in the MDL action have stated that there is no requirement that Hyundai-Kia continue the reimbursement program; indeed there is no guarantee that car owners will get any service at all; documents show that Hyundai said it cannot tell the "authorized" dealers what to do, it can only "ask", and that one dealer as stated herein has already said Hyundai said they can deny service.* Without a court guaranteed reimbursement program, the proposed settlement is a sham.

I urge the court to deny approval of the proposed settlement by Hyundai and  Kia as it is in bad faith and subject to widespread abuse.

Sincerely yours,

[redacted- Hyundai owner]

December 24, 2013

U.S. Department of Justice

950 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW

Washington, DC 20530-0001

VIA USPS PRIORITY MAIL and US Mail

RE: 

Dear Justice Department:

I am having trouble getting my 2013 Hyundai Accent SE  inspected at the dealer of my choice:

L.A. Hyundai at LAX

970 W Manchester Blvd, 

Inglewood CA   90301

While the Hyundai warranty says I can take my car to this dealer, the dealer and their agents have written me numerous times that they will not inspect my vehicle.
 

I fear for my safety only because I seek to assert my civil rights under the 1964 civil rights act and the federal 

Magnuson-Moss Act; those rights are being obstructed by  the actions of Hyundai Motor America agents and the City of Inglewood Police Department.

The Inglewood Police in particular said that if I take my car in again for service I will be arrested and thrown in jail.

Like it was done in the sixties civil rights era, please send  federal marshals to accompany me during January - February 2014 when I will take my car again to the L.A. Hyundai at Lax  dealership above for service.

Sincerely,

[Redacted]

c: Assemblyperson Karen Bass

    Senator Diane Feinstein

    City of Inglewood Police Department

    Hyundai Motor America

Class Action Lawyers Told of Hyundai Denial of Service

Class Action Lawyers Told of Police Threats at Direction of Hyundai

Class Action Lawyers Told of Hyundai Denial of Service at Police Gunpoint

*********************

Class action lawyers were told that some car owners were told that they would not get the estimated MPG until after 3,000 miles, indicating that Hyundai intentionally lied about the gas mileage estimates.

Seen on Facebook

Nov 9 2013

RE HYUNDAI-KIA

Nov. 7 2013 to

Senators Barbara Boxer,

Diane Feinstein,

Ted Cruz:

BOXER, FEINSTEIN, CRUZ

"I am sure you are aware that there are over 500,000 class members who are also entitled to service from all Hyundai dealers and who may be entitled to at least $10,000 in damages from Hyundai-Kia. I ask for your support and that of Congress and the President. As you know Marina Automotive LLC dba L.A. Hyundai at LAX still refuses me federal public accommodation and warranty service on my 2013 Hyundai Accent. Please arrange for federal marshalls to accompany me to the Inglewood dealership between November 22 and December 22 2013 so I may get federal backed service to my vehicle."

[There has been no response from the Senators.]

November 10 2013

Debra Bowen

Business Programs Division

Sacramento, California

State Bar of California

VIA CERTIFIED MAIL AND US MAIL

Re:

      Request to Revoke Certification of law firms for

advising the violation of the law

To Whom I May Concern:

The two law firms below represent Hyundai Motor America and Marina Automotive LLC dba L.A. Hyundai at LAX.

Over the past year or so the attorneys have advised their clients to deny vehicle service to myself and thus violate the federal Magnuson-Moss Act and the federal and state Public Accommodation Laws, particularly the state Unruh Act, which prohibits denial of public accommodation, arbitrary discrimination, and retaliation.

I attach four documents that prove the violation of the law by the client and their attorneys.

Please revoke the business license and certification to practice law of:

Tharpe and Howell

15250 Ventura Boulevard

Ninth Floor

Sherman Oaks, CA 91403

Phone: (818) 205-9955

Fax: (818) 205-9944

Beatty and Myers, LLP

100 West Broadway Suite 500

Long Beach, CA 90802

T: 562-606-1530 F: 562-268-1141

Sincerely,

OWNER HYUNDAI ACCENT 2013

Intended third party beneficiary to the Hyundai-dealer contract agreements

ENCLOSURES

August 12, 2012 re Don Quimby voicemail

March 28, 2013 letter from Ric Middlekauff

March 29, 2013 letter from Melanie Joo

July 25, 2013 from law firm Tharpe and Howell

Site:

Car Complaints.com

2013 Kia Optima SX 2.4t

"The following is a brief description of the ordeal that has become my new 2013 Kia Optima SX. While it is a beautiful car, the experience of the last 4 weeks or so have made me regret my decision to get it, and have solidified my opinion that nobody should purchase any Kia vehicle... I would never, ever recommend this company to anyone. It's just not worth the hassle. Since its related, I would never buy another Hyundai either."

[see actual site for complete article.]

"...I would never buy another Hyundai..."

The Canadian class action filed 2012 against Hyundai asked for $50 million in damages for misrepresentation,  $10 million in damages for the violation of the consumer protection act,  and punitive damages of $10 million dollars.

Do you still want to buy a Hyundai?

Coming Next:

A new round of lawsuits

out of Virginia against Hyundai

are asking the court to

refund the full purchase price of the vehicle

to car owners.

Hyundai Motor Finance might lose millions.

UPDATE HYUNDAI KIA

CLASS ACTION FUEL ECONOMY LAWSUIT:

The next hearing is June 26 2014. Of the 50 or so consolidated lawsuits, a few plaintiffs are silent about the proposed settlement, a few oppose it, and many support it. A careful reading of the oppositions and Hyundai's response show a revealing picture of a very vengeful and fraudulent car maker. DO NOT BUY HYUNDAI KIA. One of the major oppositions is from a Virginia plaintiff(s) who claims the car owners should be refunded the full purchase price. Hyundai however is offering to settle for about $378 per affected vehicle owner. If the court removes the Virginia plaintiffs, yes, they will be free to continue suing Hyundai [re the Elantra] in a jury trial. Another party who opposes the settlement is CONSUMER WATCHDOG; they have complained, as well as others, that the discovery process was flawed; the false mileage claims included vehicles Elantra, Sonata, Accent, Veloster and Hyundai and Kia were aware of the discrepancies but did nothing; the proposed settlement was announced even though most lawyers involved had not seen or read any settlement papers; the settlement is "unfair, inadequate, and unreasonable"; it is unfair for Hyundai and Kia to retain unclaimed and expired funds; the claim process is unnecessary; Hyundai has blamed its own Hyundai dealers for the false fuel mileage advertising. Remember Hyundai has admitted numerous times in court papers that it cannot tell the dealers to provide warranty service to your car. That is not what the warranty says, does it? DO NOT BUY HYUNDAI KIA. Los Angeles.

As seen on Facebook and Youtube update on class action

Los Angeles: Hyundai Kia Update: Hyundai and Kia want the class action settlement to provide affected car owners with about $400 per car owner (an Inglewood Small claims court awarded similar damages to one plaintiff of $700 and Hyundai had agreed to pay it which is $300 more than they now propose), while Virginia owners of the Elantra want the full purchase price refunded (around $14,000 per vehicle depending on down payment) plus treble damages. Hyundai and some of its dealers have admitted in court documents (1) that they cannot tell dealers to provide warranty service to your vehicle and (2) that their dealers can refuse you warranty service. This contradicts the warranty where Hyundai promises the dealer will service your vehicle. No wonder Virginia Hyundai owners want the full purchase price refunded plus treble damages. It is sad that some of the California class action plaintiffs fight against the full refund. Let's hope the Judge either requires the settlement to include full purchase refund or allow the Virginia plaintiffs to separate from the class action and pursue their case to trial. The court hearing is tomorrow at 9am Los Angeles in the central district courtroom of Judge George H. Wu on Spring Street on the 10th floor. Case 2:13-ml-02424-GW-FFM.

Consumer watchdog press

https://news.yahoo.com/consumer-advocates-urge-court-reject-proposed-hyundai-kia-172100712.html?bcmt=comments-postbox

From Court Documents

MINUTES OF PLAINTIFFS' MOTION FOR CERTIFICATION OF SETTLEMENT CLASS 184 ; PLAINTIFFS' MOTION FOR PRELIMINARY APPROVAL OF CLASS SETTLEMENT AND ORDER DIRECTING NOTICE TO THE CLASS 185 ; PLAINTIFFS' IN GENTRY, ET AL. V. HYUNDAI MOTOR AMERICA'S MOTION FOR SUGGESTION OF REMAND AND ENFORCEMENT OF STIPULATION IN OPEN COURT 230 hearing held before Judge George H. Wu. The Court's Tentative Ruling is circulated and attached hereto. Court hears oral argument. For reasons stated on the record, the above-entitled motions are continued to July 24, 2014 at 9:30 a.m. Plaintiffs will have until July 7, 2014 to file their supplemental briefs and revised notice and forms. Responses will be filed by July 16, 2014. Any reply will be filed by noon on July 21, 2014. Court Reporter: Katie Thibodeaux. (lom) (Entered: 06/27/2014)

In a related action, in Los Angeles Central District bankruptcy court, a debtor fights to have the claim of Hyundai Motor Finance reduced to zero ["0"] after Hyundai Motor Finance failed to serve its claim properly and refused to provide warranty service to the vehicle.

The debtor has warned Hyundai that he may seek court sanctions of $100 million dollars.

The debtor has asked in court papers for the Judge and the bankruptcy appellate panel to order Hyundai Motor Finance to properly provide warranty inspection to his 2013 Hyundai Accent. Hyundai has thus far refused to inspect the vehicle, instead tried to have the car owner arrested. Even though the car owner faced arrest twice at Hooman Hyundai in Inglewood [formerly "LA Hyundai at LAX"], the Judge said the debtor still has to pay for the car.

Contrast this with the CLASS ACTION where thousands of plaintiffs are asking the COURT to order the refund of the full purchase price of the vehicle.

Still want to buy a Hyundai?

Federal Judge Values Hyundai Kia

Fuel Economy Damages at $2700 per car owner

 The case still has not settled with more hearings scheduled. The federal Judge in the Hyundai Kia Fuel Economy Class action case has valued damages at $2700 to each affected car owner but admits the class action proposed settlement will only pay car owners about 10% of that amount or $240. Case 2:13-ml-02424 Central District Los Angeles. Judge George H. Wu called the $240 a “fair, reasonable, and adequate amount”. July 24 2014 filed document. Attorneys, however, will probably make millions in attorney fees.

For Hyundai Kia owners:

Do you think the $240 is fair or would you rather have $2700?

The Virginia Plaintiffs Could Gain over $1,350,000 Against Hyundai

According to court papers, there will not be the customary publication in magazines or newspapers of the settlement when it is final. Plus attorneys claim that Hyundai will pay them directly rather than out of the settlement fund; thus, sounds like a done deal as far as the attorney fees go. Those agreeing with the settlement can appear in court to testify; those who want to be excluded from the settlement cannot appear on court. Sounds like it should be the other way around. Apparently other lawsuits will still continue against Hyundai Kia and that is a good thing. The court has questioned the postcard and notice to effected car owners so the hearings continue for that purpose. After approval, the court must still hold a prove up hearing for those who want to protest the settlement. The court also left the door open for Virginia plaintiffs to continue their case against Hyundai with over 500 plaintiffs; those plaintiffs may use the $2700 estimate and if Hyundai is held liable, that would be $2700 each to those 500 plaintiffs or $1,350,000 plus attorney fees. If that case goes to jury trial, the damages to Hyundai for punitive and treble damages could be in the hundreds of millions, all outside of the class action. Treble damages for consumer fraud could result in each car owner getting $8100.00.

See related

http://blogs.cars.com/kickingtires/2013/12/hyundai-kia-settles-mileage-lawsuit-owners-get-lump-sum-option.html

Class Action Faces Appeal

Some of the plaintiffs have withdrawn their cases against Hyundai "without prejudice" meaning they can refile against Hyundai if within the statutue of limitations. The court had split plantiffs into "settling" and "non-settling" so there may be still other plaintiffs who survive the class action to continue their claims against Hyundai outside the court action. Court documents show that Hyundai itself valued the damages at $2700 but affected car owners will only receive about $500 on average thru the class action if settlement is approved by the court. Lawyers of course stand to make hundreds of thousands in attorney fees.

Plaintiffs in the Virginia filed case have mounted an appeal of the class action and asked for a stay of proceedings.

In court papers Hyundai Kia says that they do not have any "authority to direct any authorized dealer" to comply with the settlement agreement. However, Hyundai Kia says they will "request" that dealers provide assistance with the settlement agreement. Other court documents show that Hyundai and Kia received monthly accounting reports from all dealerships.

Hyundai Attorneys Face Sanctions

Hyundai Capital America doing business as Hyundai Motor Finance is the subject of a motion for sanctions in the Los Angeles Central bankruptcy court. The motion filed September 5 2014 is pursuant to court general order 06–03 and asks for $110 million sanction against Hyundai Capital America dba Hyundai Motor Finance and $110 million against the law firm for Hyundai Capital America dba Hyundai Motor Finance and $110 million against the law offices of Austin P. Nagel. The motion was also served on attorney Carol G. Unruh, attorney Mary Tang, Melissa Acorn, Hyundai Motor Finance. The motion will be heard on October 15 at 1:30 PM, courtroom 1375, United States Bankruptcy Court, 255 East Temple St., Los Angeles, CA. Judge Julia W. Brand.

Los Angles Mayor and Council under Mayor Eric Garcetti have also been notified.