Siqueiros v. General Motors LLC

District Court, N.D. California·Decided June 10, 2025·No. 3:16-cv-07244·Unknown

Opinion

1 2 3 4 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 5 NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 6 7 GABRIEL DEL VALLE, et al., Case No. 16-cv-07244-EMC

8 Plaintiffs, ORDER GRANTING PRELIMINARY 9 v. APPROVAL OF CLASS SETTLEMENT

10 GENERAL MOTORS LLC, Docket Nos. 654, 655, 704, 694, 713 11 Defendants.

12 13 Before the Court is Plaintiff’s unopposed Motion to approve the proposed Settlement, plan 14 of allocation, and the form and manner of notice, certify the proposed Class for settlement, direct 15 notice to the Class under Rule 23(e), and schedule a final approval hearing at which the Court will 16 consider final approval of the Settlement, final approval of the plan of allocation, and Class 17 Counsel’s motion for fees, costs, and service awards in this action. Docket No. 713. The terms of 18 Plaintiff’s proposed Settlement are set forth in a Settlement Agreement with the accompanying 19 exhibits (the “Agreement”).1 The Parties reached the Settlement through arm’s-length negotiations 20 over a period of approximately four months, and, on January 22, 2025, participated in an all-day in 21 person mediation with Antonio Piazza of Mediated Negotiations, Inc. Under the Settlement 22 Agreement, the Action will be dismissed with prejudice, and Class Plaintiffs and the Classes will 23 discharge and release their claims against the Released Parties in exchange for GM’s agreement to 24 pay the non-reversionary cash Settlement Amount of One Hundred Fifty Million Dollars 25 ($150,000,000.00) into the Settlement Fund to be distributed to Class Members in accordance with 26 the Settlement Agreement. Plaintiff’s Motion is GRANTED. 27 1 I. CLASS CERTIFICATION AND 2 APPOINTMENT OF CLASS PLAINTIFFS AND CLASS COUNSEL 3 At the preliminary approval stage, “[i]f the court has already certified a class, the only 4 information ordinarily necessary is whether the proposed settlement calls for any change in the 5 class certified, or of the claims, defenses, or issues regarding which certification was granted.” 6 Fed. R. Civ. P. 23, advisory committee notes to 2018 Amendment. Here, the Court has already 7 certified the California, Idaho, and North Carolina Classes. ECF Nos. 237, 320, and 633. The 8 proposed Settlement does not call for any changes to these Classes, or of the claims, defenses, or 9 issues regarding which certification was granted. Therefore, for the same reasons identified in the 10 Court's certification orders, the certified Classes satisfy adequacy, typicality, numerosity, and 11 commonality under Rule 23(a) and predominance and superiority Rule 23(b)(3). See, e.g., In re 12 Lyft, Inc. Sec. Litig., 2022 WL 17740302, at *3 (N.D. Cal. Dec. 16, 2022) (finding no reason to 13 revisit a prior certification order a preliminary settlement approval where the proposed settlement 14 class was identical to that already certified). The Court, therefore, confirms the following certified 15 Classes for settlement purposes: All current owners or lessees of a Class Vehicle that was purchased or leased in new 16 condition in the State of California as of May 23, 2022 (the “California Class”). 17 All current owners or lessees of a Class Vehicle that was purchased or leased from a 18 GM-authorized dealer in the State of Idaho as of May 23, 2022 (the “Idaho Class”). 19 All current owners or lessees of a Class Vehicle that was purchased or leased in the State of North Carolina as of May 23, 2022 (the “North Carolina Class”). 20 Excluded from the Classes are: GM; any affiliate, parent, or subsidiary of GM; any 21 entity in which GM has a controlling interest; any officer, director, or employee of GM; any successor or assign of GM; and any judge to whom this Action is assigned, 22 and his or her spouse; individuals and/or entities who validly and timely opted-out 23 of the previously certified classes following the Notice of Pendency of Class Action issued in this litigation on or about May 23, 2022; and current or former owners of a 24 Class Vehicle who previously released claims in an individual settlement with GM that would otherwise be covered by the Release in this Action. 25 “Class Vehicles” means all 2011-2014 Chevrolet Avalanche, Silverado, Suburban, and Tahoe, and 26 2011-2014 GMC Sierra, Yukon, and Yukon XL trucks and SUVs with Generation IV Vortec 5300 27 1 Idaho, or North Carolina. Any vehicle that has already received adequate piston replacement (i.e., 2 upgraded piston rings) under warranty and at no cost is excluded from the definition of Class 3 Vehicle. 4 The Court confirms its appointment of Plaintiffs Gabriel Del Valle, William Davis, Jr., and 5 Garret Tarvin as Class Plaintiffs for the Classes. The Court confirms its appointment of Beasley, 6 Allen, Crow, Methvin, Portis & Miles, P.C. and DiCello Levitt, LLP as Class Counsel. 7 II. PRELIMINARY APPROVAL OF THE SETTLEMENT 8 Pursuant to Rule 23(e)(2), in order to grant preliminary approval, the Court must find that 9 the proposed Settlement is “fair, reasonable, and adequate” after considering whether: (A) the 10 class representatives and class counsel have adequately represented the class; (B) the proposal was 11 negotiated at arm’s length; (C) the relief provided for the class is adequate—taking into account (i) 12 the costs, risks, and delay of trial and appeal, (ii) the effectiveness of any proposed method of 13 distributing relief to the class, including the method of processing class-member claims, if 14 required; (iii) the terms of any proposed award of attorney’s fees, including timing of payment; 15 and (iv) any agreement required to be identified under Rule 23(e)(3); and (D) the proposal treats 16 class members equitably relative to each other. Fed. R. Civ. P. 23(e)(2). In assessing fairness of a 17 settlement, courts weigh: “(1) the strength of the plaintiff's case; (2) the risk, expense, complexity, 18 and likely duration of further litigation; (3) the risk of maintaining class action status throughout 19 the trial; (4) the amount offered in settlement; (5) the extent of discovery completed and the stage 20 of the proceedings; (6) the experience and views of counsel; (7) the presence of a governmental 21 participant; and (8) the reaction of the class members of the proposed settlement.” In re Bluetooth 22 Headset Prods. Liab. Litig., 654 F.3d 935, 946 (9th Cir. 2011) (internal citations omitted). 23 The Court preliminarily approves the Settlement Agreement, including the exhibits, 24 appended to the Motion as fair, reasonable, and adequate under Rule 23(e)(2), after taking into 25 account that the Class Plaintiffs and Class Counsel have adequately represented the Classes; the 26 Settlement was reached in the absence of collusion and is the product of informed, good-faith, 27 arm’s-length negotiations between the Parties and their capable and experienced counsel; the relief 1 proposed Notice Plan is sufficient to notify the Classes, (c) the terms of the proposed attorney’s 2 fees and timing of payment, and (d) the remaining terms of the Settlement Agreement. The 3 fairness and reasonableness of this settlement is further evidenced by the fact that after a full trial, 4 class members were awarded $2,700. Here, depending on the exact size of the North Carolina 5 class and a potential future award of attorneys’ fees, costs, and service awards, class members are 6 estimated to receive a number that is not too far off from the jury award. But for this settlement, 7 there would be substantial risks of appeals challenging rulings and pretrial rulings in this case that 8 would potentially delay and diminish the class members’ awards for years.

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

Siqueiros v. General Motors LLC, (N.D. Cal. 2025).

Siqueiros v. General Motors LLC (Siqueiros v. General Motors LLC) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related

In Re Bluetooth Headset Products Liability
654 F.3d 935 (Ninth Circuit, 2011)