For those of you interested in formally objecting to this lawsuit, below is the letter I will be sending. Feel free to cut and paste and send a similar letter. You must send it to both addresses and you must sign it and provide a photocopy of your vehicle registration. 10/27/2009 Daniel Bergmann address phone # To: District Court for the Central District of California Eastern District – Riverside 3470 Twelfth Street Riverside CA 92501 To: Chimicles & Tikellis LLP 361 West Lancaster Avenue Haverford PA 19041 To the District Court and Class Counsel, I am a member of the settlement class for Case No. 5:07-cv-00287-VAP-OP (True vs. Honda Motor Company Inc.). I have been given three options in this case and I choose option c, I object to the settlement. I provide the requested information below. (i) Name address and phone number Daniel Bergmann address (ii) Model year and VIN 2005 Honda Civic Hybrid VIN XXXXXXXX (iii) Grounds for objection I object to the settlement on the grounds that the case is frivolous. I get 45-50 mpg with my car and the only way I could possibly get 32 mpg (as the plaintiffs claim) would be to drive the car in a manner in which it was not intended. That would be to try to accelerate as quickly as possible and drive at high speeds on the highway (iv) I have no papers or documents to prove this, simply my 4 years of experience as an owner. I keep track of my mileage and it averages 46 mpg. (v) No persons will be called to testify (vi) I do not intend to appear at the Final Approval Hearing. (vii) I have appeared in no other cases as a settlement objector or counsel in the past 5 years. Daniel Bergmann

I think lawyers should be regulated to a standard fee say $200/hr and they have to calculate the exact labor and record it much like most contract work is done. I am too lazy to object to this so I'll be expecting my $100 (whats up with that?) when honda settles (which we know they will because thats how all these cases go. Cheaper to settle than fight.)

I think single lawsuits for people that got a lemon or just feel like they were mislead into thinking the car is something it isn't (it isn't a magic bullet that will force you to get good mileage. If you turn your car on and leave it idling until it runs out of gas how can honda force you to get epa? Also, wouldn't honda be able to say that the numbers aren't theirs they are the EPAs? And by law they are required to publish them?

This kind of thing sickens me. Where is justice in our courts these days?

Anyway enough rambling.

My hydroponics experiment
My carputer

You ever notice how hard it is to lip read cartoon characters?

I also received the letter, and am wondering what benefit I would get with $1000. toward another car. This would mean I would have to pay for another car again? This car payed for itself, with the fact I paid the payments of with what, I would normally put in the gas tank. I average 42 to 51 MPG depending on all the variable driving conditions that happen in every day driving. For example, my HCH gets better mileage when the weather is warm and we have more daylight. If You go to and from work in the winter time, You most likely have your headlights on both ways, which drains the battery and makes the car want to recharge the battery. Have you also noticed that when it is cold out, the auto stop doesn't work as often as in warmer weather. I think this has to do with maintaining a normal engine temperature, but because it is cold out, the gas engine gets used more, using gas you would normally not use. Has anybody tried to hook up a solar panel to recharge the battery when it is parked?

Dan,

Thanks for posting your letter. I hope you mailed it!

Everyone else,

We need at least 100 people to write in. If you read the settlement, Honda needs 100 objectors in order to get out of the current settlement. http://www.hchsettlement.com/documen..._agreement.pdf

I'm writing a letter, and I'm basing it on several additional objections. I think this settlement is horrible, regardless of your stance on how accurate or inaccurate the mileage claims were.

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
EASTERN DISTRICT - RIVERSIDE


JOHN TRUE, et al.,
Plaintiffs, Case No.: 5:07-cv-00287-VAP-OP

v.

AMERICAN HONDA MOTOR CO., INC

Defendants.

OBJECTIONS TO CLASS ACTION SETTLEMENT

I am a member of the settlement class for Case No. 5:07-cv-00287-VAP-OP (True vs. Honda Motor Company Inc.). This letter officially declares my objection to the settlement on the grounds that this settlement is not in the best interest of the members of the settlement class.

Background
This lawsuit was brought against American Honda Motors (AMH) because the fuel efficiency of their cars does not match the advertised claims. Evidence has been presented that the cars were advertised to achieve 50MPG while only actually achieving 32MPG for many drivers. Drivers of these cars often purchase them specifically because of the alleged low cost of operation. When the gas mileage fails to achieve advertised claims, the consumer is left to pay the difference. I believe the difference is an accurate representation of the damages caused by AMH.

The Honda Civic warranties apply to various parts of the car for 50,000 to 150,000 miles, and consumers are sold the car with the expectation that 100,000 miles is reasonablehttp://www.honda.com/news/article.aspx?id=2006031670437
. Gasoline in California has averaged ~$3.20 per gallon over the last 3 yearshttp://www.CaliforniaGasPrices.com/retail_price_chart.aspx?city1=California&city2=&ci ty3=&crude=n&tme=36&units=us
. Using these figures, if the car only achieved 32MPG instead of 50MPG, the per-consumer damages are ~$3,600.

Objections
I have 4 objections to this settlement.

Objection #1: Failure to correct damages for the settlement class
Given the magnitude of damages to consumers, the settlement offer simply is not in the best interest of the settlement class. The settlement reimburses the members of the class for less than 2% of the damages incurred.

In the settlement, members are given 3 options:
a) Sell your hybrid, and get a $1000 coupon on another Honda (not a hybrid).
b) Give your hybrid to a family member, get a $500 coupon on another Honda (not a hybrid).
c) Get a $100 check.
All 3 options include a video for how to get better gas mileage.

Even if the settlement member wanted a new car (which many do not), the $1,000 rebate still would still be less than one-third of the damages incurred due to unexpectedly low cost-of-operation.

But worse, for most consumers, the $100 settlement is so small that it does not offset the damages at all. At the same time, this settlement greatly reduces the consumer's claims against Honda, and may even void the consumers current warranty. Why would any consumer sell this privilege for a mere $100? (see the second objection #2).

Objection #2: Overreaching settlement releases
As part of this settlement, all members of the settlement class release all claims against AMH regarding anything related to the fuel economy of the vehicle. Specifically, the settlement covers

anything "involving, based on, relating to, arising out of or in any way connected with, directly or indirectly, the advertising of the fuel economy or m.p.g. of the HCH..."

However, this clause would apply to real problems which are not intended to be part of this settlement. For example, the lifetime of the batteries in the car is not intentionally part of this settlement. It is known, for instance, that the intended battery life in these vehicles is about 150K miles. However, if the batteries are not holding their charge sufficiently during that period, it will likely cause the gas mileage to dramatically drop. If the settlement members accept this settlement, they will have no recourse to address this problem, as the settlement specifically bans it.

Further the settlement is completely unclear as to how it relates to existing warranties held by the consumer. If the battery is under warranty currently, this settlement appears to void that warranty! The harsh language clearly states that the consumer will no longer have any claim against AMH if this settlement is reached for any fuel-efficiency related problems. Voiding the warranty is completely unfair to all settlement members.

Objection #3: The retaliatory nature of the settlement against its members.
As part of this settlement, any member of the settlement class that objects to the settlement is specifically barred from collecting any benefits if the settlement is accepted by the court. This clause is clearly not in the best interest of the settlement class, and is actually retaliatory in nature.

It is clear to me that the damages I have personally incurred due to AMH's wrongful advertising are far in excess of the $100 settlement. Purchasing a new Honda has no appeal to me. I do not want to purchase a new car from Honda at any time in the future, and even if I did, I would like to get a hybrid. As such, options (a) and (b) simply do not make any sense.

But the negotiators of this settlement have defined only 3 options, and I am required to either accept them or be ignored from any settlement result. This clearly only serves the interest of the legal staff and does not serve the interest of the plaintiffs.

Objection #4: Negotiation of excessive attorney compensation at the expense of the settlement members
I recognize that the attorneys have worked hard on this case for the last year. While they are pushing for a quick settlement which will enable them to receive a hefty payout of nearly 3 million dollars, they have failed to negotiate a settlement which actually addresses the original problem in the claim. If they believe that settlement members would benefit by accepting a plan which voids their warranty and only recoups 2% of the damages, then the attorney fees should also be diminished - I propose they should be set to 2% of the requested fees, or $92,187.

My Status in the Settlement Class
The following responses are the required responses as per the proposed settlement in progress.

(i) Name address and phone number
XXXXXXXXX
(ii) Model year and VIN 2006 Honda Civic Hybrid VIN XXXXXXXX
(iii) Grounds for objection
Stated above.
(iv) Proof
Stated above.
(v) No persons will be called to testify
(vi) I do intend to appear at the Final Approval Hearing.
(vii) I have appeared in no other cases as a settlement objector or counsel in the past 5 years.

Recommendations
I have 4 recommendations for the settlement:
(a) The negotiators should compute a reasonable figure for damages to each consumer. (I computed $3,600).
(b) The negotiators should negotiate a settlement for at least 50% of those damages.
(c) Objecting to a proposal must not be a condition for being excluded from a settlement.
(d) The settlement must clearly state that the warranty on the car is not impacted by this settlement.
(e) The attorney fees should be in-line with what settlement members receive in the settlement. If the settlement members recoup 50% of their damages, then the attorneys should only collect 50% of their $2.95M fee as well.




Respectfully,





XXX

I would like to hear what other people think about my claim that this damages our warranties.

The settlement specifically addresses the warranty, stating, "nothing in this agreement shall be interpreted to modify or diminish the manufacturer's limited warranty with respect to a Class Vehicle; provided however, that any such claim of breach of any warranty or any extended warranty based on the advertising or representations made by AHM with respect to fuel economy, mileage or m.p.g are in fact released".


I think this means that if you complain "hey, you said these batteries would last for 150K miles, but now my fuel economy is terrible because the batteries are worn out" - they can say they are not responsible.

Am I wrong?

Mike

Mike,

You put a lot of effort into this, yet you completely missed the point. My claim is that if you drive in a reasonable manner you can EXCEED the mileage estimates for this vehicle. No quick starts, no high speeds and plenty of coasting and I always get 45 mpg. On the highway I can get as high as 60 mpg by driving 50-55 mph.

Dan

Dan -

I did get your point; I'm just objecting for different reasons. From a legal perspective, and I don't mean to belittle your opinion, your objection is not useful. The suit is not frivolous (which is a very specific legal term) and the judge in the case is aware that some people are getting better than 32MPG. Whether you or I agree with the way the legal system works is irrelevant - we have to play by the rules of the law.

Therefore, if you want to object successfully, you need to have reasons to object with legal precedent. Since the judge and lawyers have already concluded this is not frivolous, any objections you have must be elsewhere. For instance, you can argue that this settlement hurts your warranty. You can also argue that the award is too small to be fair to settlement members. You cannot simply say "its frivolous" and expect it to have any effect.

The one good thing is that any objection from any of us will count as an opportunity for Honda to get out of this settlement - the current proposal states that if more than 100 people object (regardless of rationale), Honda can easily get out of this ridiculous proposed settlement.

Anyway, whether we agree about whether this is frivolous or not, is immaterial. Thank you for taking the time to object - on that we definitely do agree :-)

I'm interested in what folks think of the objections I've raised. I plan to submit this shortly.

Michaelbel, I think your claims are totally legit. We have had a 2008 HCH for nearly 2 years now. Average MPG is low to mid 30s. 4-season use in NJ. Drive very conservatively, mix of local and highway. Took it to the dealer (Paul Miller Honda) to complain. They gave it a good look and said nothing is wrong. Also said they would let the Honda Corporate Service guy know about our complaint next time he showed up. Never heard back from them (made a few unreturned phone calls). Just filled up yesterday and got 320 miles on 10.2 gallons. I think a $100 rebate is a joke. I just want to give the car back and get something else (not a honda). I am a bit insulted by all the folks who claim it's a frivolous suit just because they are getting good mileage with their vehicles. Bottom line is there are alot of people who are getting terrible mileage, and something is definitely not right. Again, we drive it with a very light foot. Lots of coasting, good tire pressure, etc.

The settlement proposal's in the press now:
http://green.autoblog.com/2009/12/15...t-of-court-is/
http://wheels.blogs.nytimes.com/2009...ileage-claims/

06 Toyota Prius, had 04 Nissan 350Z; mom has 07 NAH

Jamieland, I also live in New Jersey and have been driving my 2006 HCH-2 for over 3 years. My MPG/tank has averaged from a low of 43 in mid-winter to 55+ during the summer. It also sounds like we have similar driving styles. Sounds like the dealer dropped the ball.

I agree with both of the points, the basis of the lawsuit is clearly out of touch with actual experience (yes, I would say frivolous - but I'm not a lawyer, and agree that I am not privy to the subtleties of that word as used in The Law).

Based on some of the posts, there certainly is a large variation in mileage - some definitely due to driving habits, but consider the possibility that another contributor is the lack of diagnostic tools to detect other issues that affect mileage (regen system efficiency, battery efficiency, causes of additional friction when coasting). If this is true, then it is also true that the settlement is useless.

Anyway, I do object to the settlement & will not accept the $100.
Honda (and Toyota) have made tremendous strides in showing the way to reduce our dependency on fossil fuels and by not objecting, we are actually penalizing the company and reinforcing the behavior of the only winners in this deal, the lawyers.