Legal Document: FFE Transportation Services, Inc., et al vs. Navistar, Inc.

On February 14, 2018 a FFE Joint Motion to Stay - MOTION HEARING was filed involving a dispute between Conwell, Llc, Ffe Transportation Services, Inc., and Navistar, Inc., for OTHER (CIVIL) in the District Court of Dallas County.

Preview
FILED
DALLAS COUNTY
10/21/2019 12:06PM
FELICIA PITRE
DISTRICT CLERK

Martin Reyes
CAUSE NO. DC-18-02120
FFE TRANSPORTATION SERVICES, § IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF
INC., AND CONWELL, LLC §
§
Plaintiffs §
vs. § DALLAS COUNTY, TEXAS
§
NAVISTAR, INC. §
§
Defendant § 95th JUDICIAL DISTRICT

PLAINTIFFS’ AND DEFENDANT’S JOINT MOTION TO STAY
TO THE HONORABLE JUDGE OF SAID COURT:

Plaintiffs FFE Transportation Services, Inc. and Conwell, LLC n/k/a ITS Equipment

Leasing & Maintenance, LLC and Defendant Navistar, Inc. (collectively, Plaintiffs and

Defendant shall be referred t0 as the “Parties”) ﬁle this Joint Motion t0 Stay, and in support

thereof, would respectﬁllly show the Court as follows:

BACKGROUND AND CLASS ACTION SETTLEMENT

This case arises from Plaintiffs’ purchase/lease 0f approximately 321 heavy—duty trucks

manufactured by Defendant (the “Subject Trucks”). The Trucks were equipped with MaXXForce

13-1iter engines that employed exhaust gas recirculation (“EGR”) technology. Among other

claims, Plaintiffs assert that alleged defects in the Subject Trucks’ EGR systems resulted in

breakdowns and damages including lost proﬁts, out—of—pocket expenses, and diminished resale

value. Defendant disputes these claims.

A class action is currently pending against Navistar in the matter styled In re Navistar

MaxxForce Engines Marketing, Sales Practices and Products Liability Litigation, Cause N0.

1:14-cv-103 1 8 in the Northern District of Illinois (the “Class Action”). Class members include:

PLAINTIFFS AND DEFENDANT’S
JOINT MOTION TO STAY PAGE 1 OF 5
A11 entities and natural persons who owned 0r leased a 201 1-2014
model year vehicle equipped With a MaXXForce 11- or 13-1iter
engine certiﬁed t0 meet EPA 2010 emissions standards Without
selective catalytic reduction technology, provided that vehicle was
purchased 0r leased in any of the ﬁfty (50) States, the District of
Columbia, Puerto Rico, or any other United States territory 0r
possession.

See In re Navistar Maxxforce Engines, N0. 1:14-CV-10318, Doc. 648, at ﬂ 1 (June 12, 2019).1

The Parties agree that Plaintiffs are members of this class.

The Northern District of Illinois granted Preliminary Approval 0f a Class Action

Settlement on June 12, 2019. See generally id. The Northern District of Illinois is scheduled t0

conduct a Fairness Hearing 0n November 13, 2019. See id. at ﬂ 32. Plaintiffs intend to remain as

members of the Class Action to receive the beneﬁts 0f the Class Action Settlement. If the Class

Action Settlement receives ﬁnal approval, Plaintiffs’ claims Will be settled and the Parties Will

dismiss this lawsuit With prejudice.

II.

MOTION FOR STAY 0F TRIAL SETTING AND PENDING DEADLINES

This Court has broad discretion to control its own docket and may protect a movant from

undue burden, unnecessary expense, harassment, annoyance, 0r invasion of personal,

constitutional, 0r property rights in the interest ofjustice. See TEX. R. CIV. P. 192.6; see e.g. In re

Allied Chemical Corp, 227 S.W.3d 652, 654 (TeX. 2007); Brosseau v. Harless, 697 S.W.2d 56,

58 (TeX. App.—Dallas 1985) (orig. proceeding). Granting or denying a motion t0 stay is within

that broad discretion 0f the court and Will only be reviewed for abuse 0f discretion. See Sanchez

v. Huntsville Indep. Sch. Dist., 844 S.W.Zd 286, 288 (TeX.App.-H0uston [lst Dist] 1992, n0

writ). Additionally, the Texas Supreme Court has recognized that discovery is often the most

signiﬁcant cost of litigation. In reAlford Chevrolet—Geo, 997 S.W.2d 173, 180 (TeX. 1999).

1
See Exhibit A.

PLAINTIFFS AND DEFENDANT’S
JOINT MOTION TO STAY PAGE 2 OF 5
The Parties anticipate that the Class Action Settlement will be approved and Plaintiffs’

claims in this case Will be dismissed With prejudice. In light of the likely settlement 0f Plaintiffs’

claims, the parties seek a stay 0f the pending deadlines and trial date. If a stay is not granted,

additional signiﬁcant expenses related t0 discovery and trialpreparation will occur, including the

retention, designation, and deposition 0f Plaintiffs’ and Defendant’s experts, challenges to those

experts, summary judgment brieﬁng and hearings, and mediation. A failure to stay proceedings

will greatly increase the costs and expenses the parties will incur to litigate these claims.

Going forward With this costly discovery would be a waste 0f resources for all Parties

given the anticipated resolution of Plaintiffs’ claims. T0 avoid this undue burden, the Parties

move the Court t0 stay the current trial setting and deadlines. The parties are seeking this stay for

good cause so that justice can be done, and not for the purposes 0f delay.

Lastly, n0 party Will be prejudiced by a stay 0f proceedings. The trial in this matter is set

for May 11, 2020 and any delay that a stay of proceedings may create is far outweighed by the

ever increasing costs of continued litigation of this matter.

For all of the foregoing reasons a stay of proceedings is appropriate pending the Northern

District of Illinois’ approval 0f the Class Action Settlement. If the Northern District of Illinois

does not approve the Class Action Settlement, the Parties Will set a status conference by

January 22, 2020 to update the Court 0n the status 0f the Class Action Settlement.

III.

PRAYER

WHEREFORE, PREMISES CONSIDERED, Plaintiffs FFE Transportation Services, Inc.

and Conwell, LLC n/k/a ITS Equipment Leasing & Maintenance, LLC and Defendant Navistar,

Inc. respectfully pray that the Court (i) stay the cause, all pending deadlines, and the current trial

setting, (ii)set a status conference by January 22, 2020 for the Parties to update the Court 0n the

PLAINTIFFS AND DEFENDANT’S
JOINT MOTION TO STAY PAGE 3 OF 5
status of the Class Action Settlement if Parties have not already dismissed the case With

prejudice, and (iii)grant such other and further relief t0 Which the Parties may show themselves

justly entitled.

Respectfully submitted,

/s/Jeffrey H. Richter (with permission)
CRAIG M. SICO
State Bar No. 18339850
csico shhblaw.com
JEFFREY H. RICHTER
State Bar N0. 2406 1 614
jrichter@shhblaw.com
SICO HOELSCHER HARRIS & BRAUGH LLP
900 Frost Bank Plaza
802 N. Carancahua
Corpus Christi, Texas 78401
Telephone: 361-653-3300
Facsimile: 361-653-3333

ATTORNEYS FOR PLAINTIFFS
FFE TRANSPORTATION SERVICES, INC. AND
CONWELL, LLC

/s/ Brian Sawyer
JEFFREY S. PATTERSON
State Bar No. 15596700
ipatterson@hartlinebarger.com
TYLER G. STUART
State Bar No. 24056391
tstuart@hartlinebarger.com
BRIAN SAWYER
State Bar N0. 2408 1 967
bsawver@hartlinebarger.com
HARTLINE BARGER LLP
8750 N. Central Expressway, Suite 1600
Dallas, Texas 75230
Telephone: (214) 369-2 1 00
Telecopier: (214) 267-4201

ATTORNEYS FOR
DEFENDANT NAVISTAR, INC.

PLAIN TlFFS AND DEFENDANT’S
JOINT MOTION TO STAY PAGE 4 0F 5
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

I hereby certify that a true and correct copy 0f the foregoing instrument has been
forwarded to all known counsel of record Via electronic mail on this the 16th day of October,
2019.

/s/ Brian Sawyer
BRIAN SAWYER

PLAINTIFFS AND DEFENDANT’S
JOINT MOTION TO STAY PAGE 5 OF 5
EXHIBIT A
Case: 1:14-cv-10318 Document #2 648 Filed: 06/12/19 Page 1 of 15 PageID #214552

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS
EASTERN DIVISION

)
In re Navistar MaxxForce Engines ) Master Case N0. 1:14-cv-10318
Marketing, Sales Practices and Products )
Liability Litigation ) This ﬁling applies to
) A11 Class Cases
)

) Judge Joan B. Gottschall
)

)

PRETRIAL ORDER NO. 29 GRANTING PRELIMINARY
APPROVAL OF CLASS ACTION SETTLEMENT

Before the Court is Named Plaintiffs’ Unopposed Motion for Preliminary Approval 0f

Settlement (“Motion”). Plaintiffs in this multi-district litigation (“MDL”) allege that defendants

Navistar, Inc. and Navistar International, Inc. (collectively “Defendants”) sold 0r leased 201 1-

2014 model year vehicles equipped With certain MaXXForce 11- or 13-liter diesel engines

equipped with a defective EGR emissions system.

On May 28, 2019, Named Plaintiffs executed a Class Action Settlement Agreement

(“Settlement”) With Defendants on behalf of themselves and the Class they seek t0 certify.1

Having thoroughly reviewed the Settlement and exhibits and considered the arguments of the

Settling Parties, THE COURT HEREBY FINDS, CONCLUDES, AND ORDERS THE

FOLLOWING:

1. The Settling Parties have agreed t0 a nationwide class action settlement 0f all

Released Claims. Plaintiffs seek, and for purposes 0f settlement only Defendants d0 not obj ect

1
Capitalized terms not deﬁned here have the deﬁnitions given to them in the Settlement. ECF
No. 632-1 § I.
Case: 1:14-cv-10318 Document #2 648 Filed: 06/12/19 Page 2 of 15 PageID #214553

to, cettiﬁcation of a Class with the following deﬁnition:

A11 entities and natural persons who owned or leased a 201 1-2014 model year
vehicle equipped With a MaxxForce 11- or 13-liter engine certiﬁed to meet EPA
2010 emissions standards without selective catalytic reduction technology,
provided that vehicle was purchased 0r leased in any 0f the ﬁfty (50) States, the
District of Columbia, Puerto Rico, or any other United States territory or
possession.

Excluded from the Class are: (1) all federal court judges Who have presided over
this Litigation and any members of their immediate families; (2) all entities and
natural persons that have litigated claims involving Class Vehicles’ allegedly
defective EGR emissions system against Navistar to ﬁnal, non-appealable
judgment (with respect t0 those vehicles only); (3) all entities and natural persons
who, Via a settlement or otherwise, delivered to Navistar releases of their claims
involving Class Vehicles’ allegedly defective EGR emissions system (With respect
to those vehicles only); (4) Defendants’ employees, ofﬁcers, directors, agents, and
representatives, and their family members; (5) any Authorized Navistar Dealer 0f
new 0r used vehicles; (6) any person or entity that purchased a Class Vehicle solely
for the purposes 0f resale (with respect to those vehicles only); (7) any person 0r
entity that was a lessee of a Class Vehicle for fewer than thirty-one (3 1) days (With
respect to those vehicles only); and (8) Idealease and Navistar Leasing Co. (lessees
of Class Vehicles for more than thirty (30) days from these entities are part of the
Class).

2. For purposes of preliminary approval, this Court assesses this Settlement under

Fed. R. CiV. P. 23(e). Under Rule 23(e)(1), the Court “must direct notice” t0 proposed Class

Members—that is,grant preliminary approval to the Settlement—“if giving notice isjustiﬁed by

the Parties’ showing that the court will likely be able t0 (i) approve the proposal [as fair,

reasonable, and adequate] under Rule 23 (e)(2); and (ii) certify the class for purposes ofjudgment

on the proposal.” Fed. R. CiV. P. 23(e)(1).

Likelv Approval as Fair, Reasonable. and Adequate

3. To determine Whether the Settlement is fair, reasonable, and adequate, Rule

23(e)(2) directs the Court to consider whether:

(A) the class representatives and class counsel have adequately represented the
class; (B) the proposal was negotiated at arm’s length; (C) the relief provided for
the class is adequate, taking into account: (i)the costs, risks, and delay of trial and

-2-
Case: 1:14-cv-10318 Document #: 648 Filed: 06/12/19 Page 3 of 15 PageID #:14554

appeal; (ii) the effectiveness of any proposed method of distributing relief to the
class, including the method of processing class-member claims; (iii) the terms of
any proposed award of attorney’s fees, including timing of payment; and (iv) any
agreement required to be identified under Rule 23(e)(3); and (D) the proposal treats
class members equitably relative to each other.

Fed. R. Civ. P. 23(e)(2).

4. The Class representatives proposed in the Third Amended Consolidated Class

Action Complaint adequately represent the proposed Class: they share the same alleged injury

(purchasing or leasing allegedly defective trucks) and the same interest (maximizing their

compensation for those same trucks). These representatives have shown their commitment to

class-wide recovery by each responding to extensive document requests and sitting for

depositions. This Court determined that Co-Lead Class Counsel are adequate when appointing

them as Interim Co-Lead Counsel (ECF No. 27), and since then, they have invested substantial

time and resources in this case.

5. This Court has overseen the pre-trial litigation of this MDL for over four years,

and there is no question that the Settling Parties are at arm’s length. The Settlement appears to be

the result of extensive, non-collusive, arm’s-length negotiations between experienced counsel

who were thoroughly informed of the strengths and weaknesses of the case through discovery

and motion practice, and whose negotiations were supervised by respected class action mediator

Judge Wayne Andersen (Ret.).

6. The Settlement provides adequate relief to the proposed Class. Defendants have

agreed to provide $135 million in value to the proposed Class regardless of the number of

claimants. Members of the proposed Class can choose from three forms of relief for each Class

Vehicle they own(ed) or lease(d): up to $2,500 cash or up to $10,000 rebate on a new Navistar

truck with mere proof of ownership/lease, or up to $15,000 for documented costs relating to the

-3-
Case: 1:14-cv-10318 Document #: 648 Filed: 06/12/19 Page 4 of 15 PageID #:14555

alleged defect. In light of the costs, risks, and delay of trial and appeal, this compensation is at

least adequate for purposes of Rule 23(e)(1). If this Settlement had not been reached, the Settling

Parties planned to vigorously contest class certification, and Named Plaintiffs’ chances at trial

would have been uncertain, as evidenced by the mixed record of prior jury verdicts regarding this

same alleged defect.

7. There is no reason to doubt the effectiveness of distributing relief under this

Settlement. As further addressed below, the Settling Parties propose a notice plan reasonably

calculated to reach nearly all members of the proposed Class, who will be able to submit claims

and supporting documentation online or by mail. Claims will be processed by an experienced

claims administrator, as further addressed below, and claimants will have the opportunity to

appeal any decision once to a neutral decision-maker.

8. This Court will fully assess the request of Co-Lead Class Counsel for attorney’s

fees and costs after receiving their motion supporting such request. At this stage, the Court finds

that the plan to request fees to be paid from the Cash Fund creates no reason not to direct notice

to the proposed Class. In particular, should this Court find any aspect of the requested attorneys’

fees or costs unsupported or unwarranted, the proposed Class alone will benefit from that

determination, as such funds will instead be returned to Class Members, not Defendants.

9. No agreements exist between the Parties aside from the Settlement, with the

exception of an agreement described generally in the Settlement that allows Defendants and Co-

Lead Counsel to terminate the Settlement in certain defined circumstances.

10. The Settlement treats members of the proposed Class equitably relative to each

other because all may select from the same three compensation options. Compensation would be

based on length of ownership/lease or actual damages. These are equitable terms.

-4-
Case: 1:14-cv-10318 Document #: 648 Filed: 06/12/19 Page 5 of 15 PageID #:14556

11. Having thoroughly reviewed the Settlement, the supporting exhibits, and the

Settling Parties’ arguments, this Court ﬁnds that the Settlement is fair, reasonable, and adequate,

and thus likely to be approved, subj ect to further consideration at the Fairness Hearing to be

conducted as described below.

Likelv Certiﬁcation 0f Settlement Class

12. The Court assesses the likelihood that it will be able to certify the proposed Class

under Rules 23(a) and 23(b)(3) (because this Class seeks damages). Fed. R. Civ. P. 23(a)-(b).

The Court makes this assessment for the purposes of Settlement only at this time.

13. The proposed Class is sufﬁciently numerous under Rule 23 (a)(l) because

Defendants’ data shows over 4600 on'ginal purchasers of the Class Vehicles in the United States,

all 0f Whom would be members of the Class in addition t0 subsequent purchasers and lessees.

14. Resolution of this litigation would depend on the common answers to common

questions, such as: whether the Class Vehicles are defective; whether Defendants knew or should

have known of the defect prior t0 sale; whether Defendants” warranties required itt0 ﬁx the

defect; whether the Class Vehicles came with an implied warranty of merchantability; etc.

15. The Plaintiffs’ claims are typical of the members 0f the proposed Class because

they challenge the same conduct—the design and sale of the same Navistar trucks—and make

the same legal arguments. Typicality under Rule 23(a)(3) issatisﬁed.

16. The proposed Class representatives and Co-Lead Class Counsel are adequate for

the reasons stated above when considering whether the Settlement is fair, reasonable, and

adequate: the Named Plaintiffs share the same alleged injury and interest with other members of

the proposed Class, and their counsel have already been found adequate by this Court (ECF No.

27).
Case: 1:14-cv-10318 Document #: 648 Filed: 06/12/19 Page 6 of 15 PageID #:14557

17. At least for purposes of settlement, the common issues in this litigation

predominate over individual issues under Rule 23(b)(3). The key elements of Named Plaintiffs’

claims are the existence of a defect, Defendants’ knowledge of that defect, and the materiality of

that defect to reasonable consumers.

18. This nationwide Settlement would be superior under Rule 23(b)(3) to many

individual actions. The members of the proposed Class who own a small number of Class

Vehicles may not have suffered sufficient damages to justify the costs of expensive, expert-

heavy litigation. And if the smaller number of members of the proposed Class with higher

potential damages won significant verdicts, they might deprive remaining Class Members of

compensation. The nationwide Settlement ensures that all Class Members will have the

opportunity to be compensated.

19. For these reasons, pursuant to Rule 23, and for settlement purposes only, the

Court finds it will likely certify the Class defined above in paragraph 1 of this Order. The Class

definition in this Order hereby supersedes the Class proposed in the Settlement Agreement, by

agreement of the parties as set forth in ECF No. 641 at 2–3. This finding is subject to further

consideration at the Fairness Hearing to be conducted as described below.

20. The Court hereby preliminarily appoints the Named Plaintiffs as representatives

of the Class. Pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 23(g), the Court hereby preliminarily appoints Interim

Co-Lead Counsel and Liaison Counsel (see ECF No. 27) as Co-Lead Class Counsel for the

Class.

21. With the exception of those cases brought by Direct Action Plaintiffs (as defined

in ECF No. 644), the Court hereby stays the cases pending in this multi-district litigation,

pending final approval of the Settlement. In any final approval order issued after the fairness

-6-
Case: 1:14-cv-10318 Document #: 648 Filed: 06/12/19 Page 7 of 15 PageID #:14558

hearing, the Court will enj oin all Class Members who do not validly request exclusion from the

Class from commencing 0r prosecuting any Released Claim in any court 0r before any tribunal.

Approval 0f the Manner and Form 0f Notice

22. Having preliminarily approved the Settlement, the Court “must direct notice in a

reasonable manner to all class members who would be bound by the proposal.” Fed. R. CiV. P.

23(e)(1). The Parties have submitted three proposed forms of Class Notice: a Summary Notice

(including a Claim Form), a Long Form Notice, and an Email Notice, attached t0 Named

Plaintiffs’ Amended Memorandum in Support of their Motion as Exhibits A-2, A-3, and A-4 and

a plan for distributing these notices, attached to Named Plaintiffs’ original Motion as Exhibit H.

Under the terms of the Settlement and as detailed in these exhibits and the Motion, the Settling

Parties propose to send the Email Notice and Summary Notice t0 each individual Class Member

identiﬁed through data from the Department of Motor Vehicles of all states and territories 0r

other public records Via ﬁrst—class mail with the United States Postal Service and via email to

Class Members for Whom an email address can be located. The Parties will direct the Settlement

Administrator to create a Settlement Website Where the Long Form Notice, Frequently Asked

Questions, and Claim Form will be available.

23. Having reviewed these exhibits and the proposed notice plan (included as

supplemented in ECF No. 645), the Court ﬁnds that the proposed notice plan is the best notice

practicable under the circumstances and appears reasonably calculated under the circumstances

to apprise interested Class Members of this action, the Settlement terms, Class Members’ rights

and options, how to ﬁle a claim, opt out, or obj ect, the fees and expenses to be sought by Co-

Lead Class Counsel, and the details of the Fairness Hearing. The notice plan satisﬁes the

requirements of Fed. R. CiV. P. 23(c)(2)(B) and Due Process. The Court therefore approves the
Case: 1:14-cv-10318 Document #: 648 Filed: 06/12/19 Page 8 of 15 PageID #:14559

notice plan and the notice documents substantially in the form attached as the Exhibits to Named

Plaintiffs’ Motion.

24. JND Legal Administration Co. (“JND”) has been selected to serve as the

Settlement Administrator under the terms of the Settlement. The Court hereby appoints JND to

serve as the Settlement Administrator, to be supervised jointly by the Settling Parties in taking

the actions ordered below and performing any other duties of the Settlement Administrator

provided for in the Settlement.

25. Accordingly, the Court hereby ORDERS as follows:

a. As soon as practicable after the entry of this Order, the Settlement

Administrator shall send or cause to be sent by first-class mail with the United States Postal

Service a copy of the Summary Notice to every Class Member who can be identified by

reasonable efforts acquiring data from Departments of Motor Vehicles and with reasonable

cooperation by Defendants.

b. The Settlement Administrator will perform a national change of address

search and forward notices that are returned by the U.S. Postal Service with a forwarding

address. Following receipt of any returned notices that do not include a forwarding address, the

Settlement Administrator shall as soon as practicable (itself or through an appropriate vendor)

research such returned mail for more accurate addresses and promptly mail copies of the

applicable notice to any more accurate addresses so found.

c. At approximately the same time as the Settlement Administrator mails the

Summary Notice, the Settlement Administrator shall email the Email Notice to all Class

Members for whom an email address can be located through reasonable efforts and the

reasonable cooperation of Defendants.

-8-
Case: 1:14-cv-10318 Document #: 648 Filed: 06/12/19 Page 9 of 15 PageID #:14560

d. As soon as practicable following the entry of this Order, and no later than

the mailing of the Summary Notice, the Settlement Administrator shall establish the Settlement

Website and the toll-free telephone number pursuant to the terms of the Settlement. The

Settlement Website shall permit Class Members to read the Long Form Notice and FAQ, and to

complete, review, and submit a Claim Form online, including the ability to upload and submit

supporting documentation. The Settlement Website shall further permit Class Members to

download PDF versions of the Settlement Agreement and the Claim Form.

e. Within sixty (60) calendar days after this Order, the Settlement

Administrator shall provide a declaration that it has substantially completed initial mailing and e-

mail of notice (i.e., excluding remailing ultimately returned mail), including a statement of the

number of persons to whom the Summary Notice and Email Notice was mailed and emailed.

This shall constitute the “Notice Date” referred to below.

f. At least fifteen (15) days prior to the deadline to file Claim Forms, the

Settlement Administrator will again mail and email the Summary Notice or a substantially

similar summary notice to remind Class Members of the impending claims and other deadlines.

g. The Settlement Administrator shall receive, evaluate, and either approve

or disapprove Claim Forms under the requirements of the Settlement. The Settlement

Administrator shall send a notice of claim denial by first-class U.S. mail to each Class Member

who submitted a Claim Form that the Settlement Administrator determined not to be a valid

claim, which shall apprise the Class Member of any right under the Settlement to re-submit a

claim form or supporting documentation or to appeal.

-9-
Case: 1:14-cv-10318 Document #: 648 Filed: 06/12/19 Page 10 of 15 PageID #:14561

h. The Settlement Administrator shall process Opt Out submissions received

from Class Members. The Settlement Administrator shall forward any obj ections to the

Settlement received from Class Members to Co-Lead Class Counsel and Defendants’ Counsel.

i. The Settlement Administrator shall provide t0 Co-Lead Class Counsel and

Defendants’ Counsel periodic status reports regarding the number 0f Class Members t0 Whom

notice has been sent and the numbers of Class Members Who have ﬁled Claim Forms or elected

to Opt Out of the Settlement and which compensation option each Class Member has selected.

The Settlement Administrator must provide the Opt Out List t0 the Court, Defendants’ Counsel,

and Co-Lead Class Counsel no less than twenty—one (21) days before the Fairness Hearing, and

no more than sixty—three (63) days after the Notice Date. If the Settlement Administrator receives

more timely made Opt-out requests after providing the initial Opt Out List, the Settlement

Administrator shall provide an updated Opt Out List to the Court, Defendants’ Counsel, and Co-

Lead Class Counsel no later than nine (9) days after providing the initial Opt Out List.

j. The Settlement Administrator, through data aggregators or otherwise, is

authorized to request and receive contact and vehicle information from the Department of Motor

Vehicles for allﬁfty (50) States, the District of Columbia, Puerto Rico, and any other United

States territory or possession for all VINs for Class Vehicles.

Participation in, Exclusion from, or Obiection to the Settlement

26. Each form described in this section shall be deemed to be submitted when

postmarked or When electronically received by the Settlement Administrator ifsubmitted

electronically.

27. Class Members who wish to participate in the Settlement and receive a beneﬁt

under the Settlement must complete and submit a Claim Form in accordance With the

-10-
Case: 1:14-cv-10318 Document #: 648 Filed: 06/12/19 Page 11 of 15 PageID #:14562

instructions contained therein. All Claim Forms must be submitted no later than one hundred and

eighty (180) calendar days after the Fairness Hearing.

28. To be valid, a Claim Form must: (i) be properly completed and timely submitted

in accordance with the preceding paragraph; (ii) be accompanied by adequate supporting

documentation, as required by the Settlement; and (iii) must contain no material deletions or

modifications of any of the printed material on the Claim Form.

29. Class Members who wish to exclude themselves from (i.e., opt out of) the

Settlement must sent an request to opt-out that: (1) includes the Class Member’s full name,

address, and telephone number; (2) identifies the model, model year, and VIN of the Class

Member’s Class Vehicle(s); (3) explicitly and unambiguously state his, her, or its desire to be

excluded from the Settlement Class in In re Navistar MaxxForce Engines Marketing, Sales

Practices and Products Liability Litigation; and (4) be individually and personally signed by the

Class Member. If the Class Member is an entity and not an individual, the opt-out must be signed

by an officer or director of the entity and include an affidavit that attests to that person’s ability

to act on behalf of that entity. All Opt Outs must be submitted no later than sixty (60) calendar

days after the Notice Date, a total of one hundred and twenty (120) calendar days from the date

of this Order. Class Members who submit a timely Opt Out will be excluded from the

Settlement, will not receive any benefit, and will not release any claims. All Class Members who

do not Opt Out in accordance with the terms of this Order, the Settlement, and the instructions

set forth in the Settlement and this Order, shall be bound by all determinations and judgments

concerning the Settlement.

30. Class Members who wish to object to any aspect of this Settlement, including the

certification of the Class, the approval of the Settlement as fair, reasonable, and adequate, the

- 11 -
Case: 1:14-cv-10318 Document #: 648 Filed: 06/12/19 Page 12 of 15 PageID #:14563

appointment of Co-Lead Class Counsel, or the amount of fees and expenses that Co-Lead Class

Counsel may apply for, shall be made in writing and filed with the Clerk of this Court and

mailed to both Co-Lead Class Counsel and Defendants’ Counsel no later than sixty (60) calendar

days after the Notice Date, a total of one hundred and twenty (120) calendar days from the date

of this Order. Any objection to the Settlement Agreement must be individually and personally

signed by the member of the Settlement Class submitting it. If the member of the Settlement

Class is an entity and not an individual, the objection must be signed by an officer or director of

the entity and include an affidavit that attests to that person’s ability to act on behalf of that

entity. If the member of the Settlement Class is represented by counsel, the objection must also

be signed by such counsel. Any objection must include:

a. the objecting member of the Settlement Class’s full name, address, and telephone

number;

b. the model, model year, and VIN of the objecting member of the Settlement

Class’s Class Vehicle(s), along with Proof of Membership in the Class;

c. a written statement of all grounds for the objection, accompanied by any legal

support for the objection;

d. copies of any papers, briefs, or other documents upon which the objection is

based;

e. the name, address, email address, and telephone number of every attorney

representing or assisting the objector; and

f. a statement indicating whether the objector and/or his or her counsel intends to

appear at the Fairness Hearing and, if so, a list of all persons, if any, who will

argue or testify in support of the objection. The Court will not hear from any

- 12 -
Case: 1:14-cv-10318 Document #: 648 Filed: 06/12/19 Page 13 of 15 PageID #214564

persons at the Fairness Hearing, besides Co-Lead Class Counsel and Defendants’

Counsel, who did not follow this procedure.

Any Class Member Who does not make an obj ection in the manner and by the date described

here shall be deemed to have waived such obj ection. By obj ecting, 0r otherwise requesting to be

heard at the Fairness Hearing as described below, a person shall be deemed to have submitted to

the jurisdiction of this Court with respect to the obj ection or request to be heard and the subject

matter of the Settlement.

3 1. Class Members may not both object and Opt Out. If a Class Member submits both

an Opt Out and an obj ection, the Opt Out shall be controlling.

The Fairness Hearing and Related Deadlines

32. This Court will hold a Fairness Hearing approximately one hundred and forty—t

Case Info

Judge

EVANS, DAVID Track Judge’s New Case

Case No.

(Subscribe to View)

Document Filed Date

November 15, 2019

Case Filing Date

February 14, 2018

County

Parties

For full print and download access, please subscribe at https://www.trellis.law/.

Document for FFE Transportation Services, Inc., et al vs. Navistar, Inc.

Preview

Related Topics

Case Info

Parties