Amans v. Tesla, Inc.

District Court, N.D. California·Decided October 20, 2023·No. 3:21-cv-03577·Unknown

Opinion

1 EVE-LYNN J. RAPP (SBN 342892) SARVENAZ J. FAHIMI (SBN 226148) erapp@edelson.com sfahimi@cpmlegal.com 2 EDELSON PC COTCHETT, PITRE & MCCARTHY, LLP 2101 Pearl Street San Francisco Airport Office Center 3 Boulder, Colorado 80302 840 Malcolm Road Tel: 720.741.0084 Burlingame, CA 94010 4 Fax: 720.741.0081 Telephone: 650.697.6000 Fax: 650.697.0577 5

6 PETER A. MUHIC (pro hac vice) pm@millerlawpc.com 7 THE MILLER LAW FIRM, PC 950 W. University Dr., Suite 300 8 Rochester, MI 48307 Tel: 248.841.2200 9 Fax: 248.652.2852

10 Counsel for Plaintiffs

11 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 12 NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA SAN FRANCISCO DIVISION 13

14 MATTHEW AMANS, and BABAK Case No. 3:21-cv-03577-VC MALEK, individually and on behalf of all 15 similarly situated individuals, [PROPOSED] ORDER GRANTING PLAINTIFFS’ RENEWED MOTION 16 Plaintiffs, FOR PRELIMINARY APPROVAL 17 OF CLASS ACTION v. SETTLEMENT 18 Hon. Vince Chhabria 19 TESLA, INC., a Delaware corporation,

20 Defendant. 21

28 1 The above-captioned matter came before this Court upon Plaintiffs’ Renewed Motion and 2 Memorandum in Support of Preliminary Approval of Class Action Settlement. Based upon the 3 memoranda, declarations, and exhibits submitted, as well as the files and proceedings in this case, 4 the Court finds as follows: 5 1. The terms and phrases in this order shall have the same meaning as ascribed to 6 them in the Class Action Settlement Agreement (Dkts. 98-1, Ex. 1, 101, & 109-2, Ex. 1.) 7 2. Plaintiffs have moved the Court for an order preliminarily approving the settlement 8 of the Action in accordance with the Settlement Agreement, which, together with its incorporated 9 documents, set forth the terms and conditions for a proposed settlement and dismissal of this case 10 with prejudice. The Court “review[s] class action settlements just as carefully at the initial stage as 11 [it] do[es] at the final stage.” Cotter v. Lyft, Inc., 193 F. Supp. 3d 1030, 1037 (N.D. Cal. 2016). 12 The Court, having read and considered the Settlement Agreement and having heard the Parties, 13 finds that it appears to be fair, adequate, and reasonable to the Settlement Class. The Court also 14 finds that the Settlement Release set forth in the Settlement, if finally approved, will release claims 15 based only on the identical factual predicate alleged in the Amended Consolidated Class Action 16 Complaint. (Dkt. 54.) Accordingly, the Court preliminarily approves the terms of the Settlement 17 Agreement subject to the Final Approval Hearing referred to in this order, certifies the Settlement 18 Class defined below for settlement purposes, finds that the Settlement Class defined below is 19 likely to be certified for purposes of entering Final Judgment, appoints Class Counsel and the 20 Class Representatives, and approves the Notice plan. 21 3. The Court grants preliminary approval of the Settlement based upon the terms set 22 forth in the Settlement Agreement. 23 Certification of the Settlement Class 24 4. For purposes of the settlement only, the Court certifies the following Settlement 25 Class pursuant to Rule 23(b)(3) as defined in the Settlement Agreement: 26 all persons with whom Tesla entered into a contract for the purchase and/or installation of a Solar Roof with or without a Powerwall energy storage 27 system in the United States and whom Tesla notified, in or around April 28 1 2021, would be required to pay an increased price as a condition for performance of the contract.1 2 3 5. The Court finds, subject to the Final Approval Hearing referred to below, that the 4 Settlement Agreement is fundamentally fair, adequate, and reasonable, and, for the purposes of 5 settlement only, that the Settlement Class likely satisfies the requirements of Rule 23 of the 6 Federal Rules of Civil Procedure for purposes of entering Final Judgment, specifically, that: the 7 Settlement Class of approximately 8,636 individuals is so numerous that joinder of all members is 8 impracticable; there are questions of fact and law common to the Settlement Class (e.g., whether 9 Tesla’s April 2021 price increase was a breach of its standardized contracts with all Class 10 Members); Plaintiffs Matthew Amans’ and Babak Malek’s claims are typical of the claims of the 11 Settlement Class; Plaintiffs and Class Counsel will fairly and adequately protect the interests of 12 the members of the Settlement Class; common questions of law or fact predominate over 13 questions affecting individual members; and a class action is a superior method for fairly and 14 efficiently adjudicating the Action. 15 Preliminary Approval of the Settlement 16 6. For purposes of settlement only: (1) the Court confirms the interim appointments 17 Eve-Lynn Rapp of Edelson PC as lead Class Counsel, and Peter Muhic of The Miller Law Firm, 18 P.C. and Sarvenaz J. Fahimi of Cotchett, Pitre, & McCarthy, LLP as Plaintiffs’ Steering 19 Committee, and Plaintiffs Matthew Amans and Babak Malek as Class Representatives. The Court 20 finds that these attorneys are competent and capable of exercising the responsibilities of Class 21 Counsel and that Plaintiffs will adequately protect the interests of the Settlement Class defined 22 above. 23 24 25 1 Excluded from the Settlement Class are (a) any Judge or Magistrate presiding over this 26 action and members of their families; (b) Defendant, Defendant’s subsidiaries, parents, successors, predecessors, and any entity in which Defendant or its parents have a controlling 27 interest and its current or former employees, officers and directors; (c) persons who properly 28 execute and file a timely request for exclusion from the Settlement Class; and (d) the legal 1 7. The Court finds that, subject to the Final Approval Hearing, the Settlement 2 Agreement is fair, reasonable, and adequate, is likely to be approved under Federal Rule of Civil 3 Procedure 23(e)(2), and is in the best interests of the Settlement Class set forth above. The Court 4 further finds that the Settlement Agreement substantially fulfills the purposes and objectives of the 5 class action and provides substantial relief to the Settlement Class without the risks, burdens, 6 costs, or delay associated with continued litigation, trial, and/or appeal. The Court also finds that 7 the Settlement Agreement (a) is the result of arm’s-length negotiations between experienced class 8 action attorneys familiar with the legal and factual issues of this case; (b) is sufficient to warrant 9 notice of the Settlement and the Final Approval Hearing to be disseminated to the Settlement 10 Class; and (c) meets all applicable requirements of law, including Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 11 23 and the Class Action Fairness Act (“CAFA”), 28 U.S.C. § 1715; and (d) is not a finding or 12 admission of liability by the Defendant or any other parties. 13 Notice and Administration 14 8. This Court approves, as to form and content, the Notice of proposed class action 15 settlement in substantially the form attached to the Settlement Agreement as Exhibits B, C, and D. 16 The Notice includes the mailing of the Settlement Class Notice by email and by First-Class U.S. 17 Mail to the Settlement Class Members, a reminder email notice, and a Settlement Website. 18 9. The Court further finds that the Notice is the best notice practicable under the 19 circumstances, and that the Notice complies fully with the requirements of the Federal Rules of 20 Civil Procedure.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Amans v. Tesla, Inc., (N.D. Cal. 2023).

Amans v. Tesla, Inc. (Amans v. Tesla, Inc.) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related

Cotter v. Lyft, Inc.
193 F. Supp. 3d 1030 (N.D. California, 2016)