Case 2:13-ml-02424-GW-FFM Document 371-2 Filed … of laura antonini iso krauth/hasper plaintiffs’...

DECLARATION OF LAURA ANTONINI ISO KRAUTH/HASPER PLAINTIFFS’ MOTION FOR ATTORNEYS’ FEES AND EXPENSES; Case No. 2:13-ml-02424-GW-FFM

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

HARVEY ROSENFIELD (SBN 123082) [email protected] PAMELA PRESSLEY (SBN 180362) [email protected] LAURA ANTONINI (SBN 271658) [email protected] CONSUMER WATCHDOG 2701 Ocean Park Blvd., Suite 112 Santa Monica, CA 90405 Tel: (310) 392-0522 / Fax: (310) 392-8874

JONATHAN W. CUNEO [email protected] WILLIAM ANDERSON [email protected] CUNEO GILBERT & LADUCA, LLP 507 C Street, NE Washington, DC 20002 Tel: (202) 789-3960 / Fax: (202) 789-1813

STEVE M. CAMPORA (SBN 110909) [email protected] ROBERT A. BUCCOLA (SBN 112880) [email protected] CRAIG C. SHEFFER (SBN 131243) [email protected] DREYER BABICH BUCCOLA WOOD CAMPORA, LLP 20 Bicentennial Circle Sacramento, CA 95826 Tel: (916) 379-3500 / Fax: (916) 379-3599

NIALL P. McCARTHY (SBN 160175) [email protected] ANNE MARIE MURPHY (SBN 202540) [email protected] ERIC J. BUESCHER (SBN 271323) [email protected] COTCHETT, PITRE & McCARTHY, LLP 840 Malcolm Road Burlingame, CA 94010 Tel: (650) 697-6000 / Fax: (650) 692-3606

Attorneys for the Krauth and Hasper, et al. Plaintiffs

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

IN RE: HYUNDAI AND KIA FUEL ECONOMY LITIGATION

Case No. 2:13-ml-02424-GW-FFM PUBLIC REDACTED VERSION DECLARATION OF LAURA ANTONINI IN SUPPORT OF KRAUTH/HASPER PLAINTIFFS’ MOTION FOR PAYMENT OF ATTORNEYS’ FEES, REIMBURSEMENT OF EXPENSES AND COMPENSATION TO NAMED PLAINTIFFS Date: February 26, 2015 Time: 8:30 a.m. Judge: Hon. George H. Wu Courtroom: 10

Case 2:13-ml-02424-GW-FFM Document 371-2 Filed 12/23/14 of 57 Page ID #:6668


i

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

TABLE OF CONTENTS I. ABOUT CONSUMER WATCHDOG ............................................................... 1 II. SUMMARY OF CONSUMER WATCHDOG ATTORNEYS’ ROLE IN LITIGATION ........................................................................................................... 2 III. PROFESSIONAL TIME .................................................................................. 5 IV. EFFORTS TO RESOLVE FEES WITH DEFENDANTS ............................... 7 V. PROJECTION OF FUTURE EXPENDITURE OF TIME BY CONSUMER WATCHDOG ATTORNEYS .................................................................................. 8 VI. CHRONOLOGY OF WORK IN THIS MATTER ........................................... 8

A. Pre-filing investigation and preparation of complaint in Bird. ...................... 8 B. Discovery and motion practice in Bird. ........................................................ 13 C. Pre-filing investigation and preparation of complaints in Krauth and Hasper; the MDL Petition. ............................................................................................... 15 D. Settlement announcement and confirmatory discovery in the MDL. .......... 18 E. The Process of Improving the Settlement Agreement. ................................. 26

VII. LITIGATION COSTS AND EXPENSES ..................................................... 32 VIII. THE KRAUTH, HASPER, AND BIRD PLAINTIFFS’ CONTRIBUTION . 33



1

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

I, Laura Antonini, declare as follows:

1. I am an attorney licensed to practice in the State of California and am

admitted to the United States District Court, Central District of California, staff

attorney for Consumer Watchdog and one of the attorneys of record for Plaintiff

Gunther Krauth in Krauth v. Hyundai Motor America, Case No. 8:12-cv-01935-

GW-FFM (C.D. Cal.); Plaintiffs Linda Hasper, Kelly Moffett, Evan Grogan,

Carlos Medina, Alberto Dominguez, Catherine Bernard, Michael Breien, Laura

Gill, Thomas Schille, Judith Stanton, Randy Rickert, and Bryan Zirkel in Hasper

et al. v. Hyundai Motor America et al., Case No. 8:13-cv-00220-GW-FFM (C.D.

Cal.); and Plaintiff Louis Bird in Bird v. Hyundai Motor America, Case No. 34-

2012-00127249 (Sacramento Superior Court).

2. I submit this Declaration on behalf of myself, Harvey Rosenfield and

Pamela Pressley—the Consumer Watchdog attorneys who are counsel for the

Plaintiffs in Krauth, Hasper and Bird—in support of the Krauth/Hasper Plaintiffs’

Motion for Payment of Attorneys’ Fees, Reimbursement of Expenses and

Compensation to Named Plaintiffs (“Motion”).

3. I have personal knowledge of the facts stated herein and, if called as a

witness, I could and would competently testify to the truth thereof.

4. The Declarations of William Anderson, Anne Marie Murphy and

Steven M. Campora in support of the Motion also provide the Court with a

detailed summary of the tasks those counsel performed during the course of this

litigation, and I incorporate those Declarations by reference.

I. ABOUT CONSUMER WATCHDOG

5. Consumer Watchdog is a non-profit charitable organization.

Established in 1985, Consumer Watchdog utilizes a combination of litigation,

advocacy and public education to effectuate its mission. The personnel of



2

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

Consumer Watchdog include some of the nation’s foremost consumer advocates

and experts on consumer matters.

6. Consumer Watchdog’s legal staff advocates on behalf of consumers

before the courts and regulatory agencies. Over the course of nearly three decades,

Consumer Watchdog attorneys have represented consumers in numerous class

actions, civil lawsuits, and administrative proceedings challenging unfair business

practices and other corporate misconduct in the American marketplace. Consumer

Watchdog’s attorneys also hold government agencies accountable through civil

actions. Consumer Watchdog attorneys have established precedential decisions in

numerous landmark cases. A copy of Consumer Watchdog’s Legal Project resume

is attached as Exhibit A to this Declaration.

II. SUMMARY OF CONSUMER WATCHDOG ATTORNEYS’ ROLE IN

LITIGATION

7. Consumer Watchdog counsel’s goal since the inception of the

litigation has been to ensure that every Class Member is fully and fairly

compensated for the Defendants’ egregious misrepresentations about their

vehicles’ fuel economy, which not only resulted in significant financial harm to

the class, but also undermined competition in the marketplace and harmed the

environment, as the Environmental Protection Agency (“EPA”) recently noted.1

8. A highly detailed description of the legal work completed by

Consumer Watchdog attorneys in this litigation is provided below in paragraphs

23-106. In summary, Consumer Watchdog lawyers:

1 Press Release, EPA, United States Reaches Settlement with Hyundai and Kia in Historic Greenhouse Gas Enforcement Case (Nov. 3, 2014), http://yosemite.epa.gov/opa/admpress.nsf/bd4379a92ceceeac8525735900400c27/15519081fbf4002285257d8500477615!OpenDocument.



3

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

• Reviewed consumer complaints submitted to Consumer Watchdog

concerning Hyundai vehicles;

• Conferred with Consumer Watchdog policy staff regarding their requests to

EPA, the White House and Hyundai for investigation and corrective action;2

• Conducted an extensive investigation of the underlying facts surrounding

the Defendants’ fuel economy misrepresentations, which led to the drafting

and filing of the state (Bird) and later the federal (Krauth and Hasper)

complaints;

• Developed and executed litigation strategy at each stage of the process, with

the assistance of the highly experienced co-counsel recruited by Consumer

Watchdog attorneys: the nationally-recognized firms of Cotchett, Pitre &

McCarthy, LLP, Cuneo Gilbert & LaDuca, LLP, and Dreyer Babich

Buccola Wood Campora, LLP;

• Assisted co-counsel in the prosecution of discovery in the Bird case during

2012 and 2013, challenging the sufficiency of Hyundai’s discovery

responses and its attempts to evade discovery, obtaining documents relevant

to the analysis of the strength of the legal claims, and that were ultimately

utilized in this MDL;

• After the EPA confirmed the Defendants’ misrepresentations in November,

2012, filed the MDL Petition that centralized the 60 federal cases before

this Court;

• Pressed to obtain the terms of the settlement that was disclosed to this Court

at the first MDL hearing in February, 2013, between Hyundai and Kia and

two of the 60 plaintiffs’ firms; and to maximize the production of

information needed to determine whether the proposed settlement was fair

and reasonable, including electronic discovery and interviews with 2 No compensation for those activities is requested in this Motion.



4

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

Defendants’ personnel. These efforts centered on active participation in

eight status conferences and 21 telephonic calls with Liaison Counsel and

other non-settling parties, numerous discovery proposals and the witness

interview process;

• Provided the Court and the non-settling parties with an extensive critique of

the Settlement Agreement that was finally filed by the Settling Parties on

December 23, 2013, and sought changes; these efforts are reflected in the

twice-amended Settlement Agreement filed in May, 2014 by the Settling

Parties, and supported by Liaison Counsel and other non-settling parties.

Our work during this period included participation in five telephonic calls

with Liaison Counsel and other non-settling parties;

• After all but two of the other non-settling plaintiffs’ firms acceded to the

revised Settlement in May, 2014, continued our strenuous advocacy on

behalf of the class and our clients by filing an opposition to the Motion for

Preliminary Approval of the Settlement, which demanded numerous

substantive changes to the terms of the Settlement;

• After the Court denied preliminary approval on June 26, 2014, worked to

obtain specific changes to the terms of the Settlement. In particular,

Consumer Watchdog attorneys pressed for and obtained (with the Court’s

active interest) greater clarity in and reach of the notice and claims forms

and claims process, in order to enable Class Members to take full advantage

of all the benefits of the Settlement Agreement without unnecessary

confusion, delay, friction or limitations. These efforts include five hearings,

and five rounds of briefings and proposed revisions, often requiring a line-

by-line, word-by-word analysis, and extended through October, 2014 – well

after the Court granted preliminary approval; and,



5

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

• Throughout the litigation, we and our co-counsel continuously

communicated with our 14 named clients as well as responding to hundreds

of inquiries by other Class Members.

III. PROFESSIONAL TIME

9. This litigation was pursued on a fully contingent basis. Through

December 18, 2014, Consumer Watchdog counsel devoted 2,778.2 hours of

professional time to the investigation, development, prosecution and resolution of

this litigation. Based upon the current hourly rates ordinarily charged by

Consumer Watchdog counsel in conjunction with civil class action litigation, the

lodestar value of that time is $1,488,697.50. All of the services performed by

Consumer Watchdog counsel were reasonably necessary to effective the

prosecution of this litigation.

10. Our lodestar was compiled from contemporaneous time records

regularly maintained by Consumer Watchdog attorneys in the ordinary course of

business, providing descriptions of hours spent on each task divided in tenths of an

hour. Because Consumer Watchdog counsel’s billing records (describing

precisely what tasks were performed) constitute our attorney work product and

contain information protected by the attorney-client privilege, I have not

submitted our billing records at this time. Instead, below I provide the Court with

a highly detailed description of the tasks we performed during the course of this

litigation. However, Consumer Watchdog attorneys regularly provide our time

records for review in state agency administrative proceedings, and we are prepared

to submit our billing records in this proceeding to the Court, subject to redaction

of information protected by the attorney-client and work product privileges.

11. Attached as Exhibit B is a chart that lists the Consumer Watchdog

attorneys who have worked on the litigation, their hourly rates and hours worked,

and their respective lodestar totals through December 18, 2014.



6

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

12. Consumer Watchdog’s hourly rates are based on the experience and

qualifications of its attorneys, our review of the hourly rates charged by plaintiff

firms for attorneys of comparable skill and experience, the historical rates awarded

or paid for Consumer Watchdog attorneys’ professional services in other class

action proceedings,3 and in consultation with Mr. Richard Pearl, a recognized

expert on attorneys’ fees issues in the California market. A Declaration by Mr.

Pearl supporting this Motion is filed concurrently herewith. No adjustment was

made to these usual and customary hourly rates, notwithstanding the complexity

of the matters involved, the opposition encountered, the preclusion of other

employment, the expected delay in payment, or the others factors present in this

case that might justify a higher rate of compensation.

13. In preparing their respective time records for this submission,

Consumer Watchdog’s attorneys, exercising their billing judgment, have reduced

the actual lodestar reflected on our billing records by $70,432.50 to account for

potential duplication of effort or otherwise unbillable time. I have reviewed

Consumer Watchdog’s time billing records and believe that the time expended and

work performed in the proceeding, as reflected in paragraph 9 and Exhibit B, was

reasonable and appropriate, and the minimum required to properly represent our

clients and to achieve the result obtained.

14. Throughout the entire litigation – in this proceeding and in the Bird

action – Consumer Watchdog attorneys coordinated with our co-counsel, Cotchett,

Pitre & McCarthy, LLP, Cuneo Gilbert & LaDuca, LLP, and Dreyer Babich

Buccola Wood Campora, LLP (collectively, “Consumer Watchdog Legal Team”),

3 See, e.g., Order Granting Attorneys’ Fees and Costs, Doe, et al. v. United Healthcare Insurance Company, et al., Case No. SACV 13-0864 (C.D. Cal. Oct. 15, 2014) (Dkt. 77).



7

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

in order to ensure there was minimal duplication of efforts while maintaining the

high quality of legal work for which these highly respected firms are known.

15. The Consumer Watchdog Legal Team also collaborated with Liaison

Counsel and other non-settling plaintiffs’ lawyers during the confirmatory

discovery phase, to efficiently divide tasks so as to avoid unnecessary duplication

of efforts.

16. Similarly, Consumer Watchdog attorneys divided tasks among

themselves so as to maximize efficiency while ensuring superior representation of

our clients and the Class.

17. The prosecution of this litigation on a coordinated basis has resulted

in enhanced efficiency, as the professional time required to accomplish many

necessary tasks was eliminated or significantly reduced without compromising the

interests of the Consumer Watchdog Legal Team’s clients or the Class. The Class

in this litigation has received the full benefit of the professional time expended.

IV. EFFORTS TO RESOLVE FEES WITH DEFENDANTS

18. After all but the Consumer Watchdog Legal Team and two other

firms acceded to the proposed settlement as modified on May 2, 2014, the settling

and previously non-settling parties disclosed that they intended to mediate their

anticipated request for attorneys’ fees.

19. The Consumer Watchdog Legal Team had not been informed of the

mediation. After discussion with our co-counsel, and with Liaison Counsel, we

determined that it would not be appropriate to participate in the private mediation

at that time, because our efforts to improve the Settlement were ongoing.

20. Subsequently, the Court calendared the instant motion for attorneys’

fees. In the event there was an opportunity to conserve both the Court’s and the

parties’ resources prior to briefing and filing this Motion, and with the

understanding that our efforts on behalf of the Class would continue, on October



8

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

24, 2014, my colleague Harvey Rosenfield and I left a voicemail for Shon Morgan,

counsel for Hyundai, in an effort to discuss a resolution of the Consumer

Watchdog Legal Team’s fees. We received no response.

21. On October 30, 2014, I emailed Mr. Morgan regarding the Consumer

Watchdog Legal Team’s fees. Mr. Morgan responded by email on October 31,

2014 that he would get back to me by phone, but did not do so.

V. PROJECTION OF FUTURE EXPENDITURE OF TIME BY

CONSUMER WATCHDOG ATTORNEYS

22. At the October 6, 2014 hearing, the Court requested that the parties

estimate their future expenditures in the case as part of this Motion. (10/6/14 Hrg.

Tr. at 12:25 – 14:8.) Consumer Watchdog attorneys conservatively estimate they

will incur an additional $36,000 in lodestar through final approval to review

claims rate data and, if necessary, submit supplemental briefing advocating for

additional measures to increase the claims rate. This additional lodestar expense is

calculated utilizing current hourly rates and assumes that I will incur an additional

50 hours of work and that Consumer Watchdog counsel Harvey Rosenfield will

incur an additional 20 hours of work. (This estimate of additional lodestar is not

included in the lodestar total reflected in paragraph 9, or in Exhibit B). No

estimate is made here regarding an appeal, if necessary, in this matter.

VI. CHRONOLOGY OF WORK IN THIS MATTER

A. Pre-filing investigation and preparation of complaint in Bird. (January, 2012 - July 3, 2012)

23. In November, 2011, Consumer Watchdog began investigating

numerous fuel economy complaints it received from consumers about the 2011

and 2012 Hyundai Elantra. (See Complaint at ¶29, Krauth v. Hyundai Motor

America, Case No. 8:12-cv-01935-GW-FFM (C.D. Cal. Nov. 6, 2012) (Dkt. 1);



9

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

Complaint at ¶65, Hasper et al. v. Hyundai Motor America et al., Case No. 8:13-

cv-00220-GW-FFM (C.D. Cal. Feb. 7, 2013) (Dkt. 1).)

24. In response to these complaints, on November 30, 2011, Consumer

Watchdog sent a letter to the EPA requesting that the EPA re-test the 2011 and

2012 Elantra model in its own facility to determine whether the Elantra’s

advertised fuel economy was accurate. (Id.)

25. Consumer Watchdog subsequently sent letters to Hyundai Motor

America (December, 2011), President Obama and the EPA Administrator

(January, 2012), Hyundai Motor America’s CEO at the time, John Krafcik, and

Hyundai Motor Company (Hyundai and Kia’s parent company, located in South

Korea) CEO, Eok Jo Kim (February, 2012) questioning the accuracy of Hyundai’s

representations about the fuel economy of the Elantra and asking the company to

take corrective action. (Id.)

26. Additionally, in letters to Hyundai in February, 2012, Consumer

Watchdog requested that Hyundai remove or qualify any prominent “MPG”

claims in its 2012 Super Bowl advertising until the Elantra’s fuel economy

numbers were validated. Shortly thereafter, Hyundai pulled the “40 MPG Elantra”

claim from its 2012 Super Bowl advertisement for the Elantra.

27. Consumer Watchdog’s comments garnered significant media

attention between November, 2011 and February, 2012. 4 4 See, e.g., Chris Woodyard, Consumer Outfit Rips Hyundai Elantra’s Gas Mileage Rating, USA Today, Nov. 30, 2011, http://content.usatoday.com/communities/driveon/post/2011/11/consumer-outfit-rips-hyundai-elantras-gas-mileage-rating/1#.VIjAzIfB9cA; John Voelcker, Consumer Watchdog to EPA: Re-Test Hyundai Elantra Gas Mileage, Green Car Reports, Dec. 1, 2011, http://www.greencarreports.com/news/1070094_consumer-watchdog-to-epa-re-test-hyundai-elantra-gas-mileage; Christian Seabaugh, Hyundai Responds to Consumer Watchdog’s Elantra Fuel Economy Complaints, Motor Trend, Dec. 2, 2011, http://wot.motortrend.com/hyundai-responds-to-consumer-watchdogs-elantra-fuel-economy-complaints-142051.html; Jeff Sabatini,



11

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

fees for work performed on the tasks described in paragraphs 23 through 27 above

is included in this Motion.

31. As a result of the media attention, Consumer Watchdog received a

high volume of consumer complaints about the fuel economy of the Elantra and

other Hyundai vehicles. In January, 2012, Consumer Watchdog attorneys

reviewed these complaints, conducted numerous telephonic conferences with

affected consumers, including potential lead plaintiffs, and reviewed various

documents submitted by them confirming their ownership or lease of a Hyundai

Elantra and providing information about the fuel economy advertisements that

they relied upon when shopping for a new car.

32. Consumer Watchdog attorneys then performed extensive research on

Hyundai’s advertisements about the fuel economy of the Elantra and disparities

between the advertised and actual fuel economy for the vehicle. Legal research

conducted by Consumer Watchdog attorneys at this stage included review of

potential violations of California law and federal regulations governing the

automobile manufacturers’ obligation to make certain disclosures in

advertisements about their vehicles’ fuel economy.

33. Based on their research, Consumer Watchdog attorneys drafted and

on April 23, 2012 mailed a letter on behalf of Plaintiffs Louis Bird and Gunther

Krauth to Hyundai pursuant to the Consumer Legal Remedies Act (California

Civil Code § 1750 et seq.), demanding that Hyundai cease and desist its continued

use of a deceptive marketing campaign regarding the fuel economy of the Hyundai

Elantra and pay damages to Hyundai Elantra purchasers, including damages for

unexpected, additional fuel costs.

34. Receiving no response, Consumer Watchdog counsel drafted the

complaint in Bird v. Hyundai Motor America, filed on July 3, 2012 in Sacramento



12

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

Superior Court on behalf of California Hyundai Elantra owners and lessees.5 Bird

alleged that Hyundai’s “40 MPG Elantra” advertisements violated the CLRA, the

Unfair Competition Law (“UCL”), Bus. & Prof. Code § 17200 et seq., the False

Advertising Law (“FAL”), Bus. & Prof. Code §17500 because they did not

comply with the disclosures required by federal law. The filing of Bird also

generated widespread, national media coverage in early July, 2012.6

5 After Consumer Watchdog’s letters to the government and Hyundai received significant media attention, the law firm of McCune Wright LLP filed a case against Hyundai over fuel economy advertising related to the Hyundai Elantra and Sonata. (Espinosa v. Hyundai Motor America, Case No. 8:12-cv-00800 (C.D. Cal.).). The Espinosa complaint cited to Consumer Watchdog’s letter to the EPA. (First Amended Complaint at ¶27, Espinosa (C.D. Cal. Feb. 23, 2012) (Dkt. 15).) Espinosa was the only similar case pending nationally at the time Bird was filed. 6 See, e.g., Michael Finney, Man Sues Over Car’s Advertised Mileage, KGO-TV, Jul. 5, 2012, http://abclocal.go.com/story?section=news/7_on_your_side&id=8726800; Jonathan Stempel, Hyundai Sued over Elantra Fuel Economy Ad Claims, Reuters, Jul. 9, 2012, http://www.reuters.com/article/2012/07/09/us-hyundai-elantra-lawsuit-idUSBRE8681DH20120709; Jerry Hirsch, Hyundai Misleads About Elantra Fuel Economy, Suit Says, LA Times, Jul. 10, 2012, http://articles.latimes.com/2012/jul/10/business/la-fi-autos-mileage-lawsuits-20120711; Eric Evarts, Hyundai Lawsuit Points out Why Consumers Need to Beware of 40 mpg Claims, Consumer Reports, Jul 10, 2012, http://www.consumerreports.org/cro/news/2012/07/hyundai-lawsuit-points-out-why-consumers-need-to-beware-of-40-mpg-claims/index.htm; Fred Meier, Hyundai sued over ads touting Elantra’s 40 mpg rating, USA Today, July 11, 2012, http://content.usatoday.com/communities/driveon/post/2012/07/hyundai-sued-over-ads-touting-elantras-40-mpg-rating/1#.U4S1XyhWjHY; Aaron Robinson, Hyundai Is Sued Over Elantra Mileage, NY Times, Jul. 13, 2012, http://www.nytimes.com/2012/07/15/automobiles/hyundai-is-sued-over-mileage.html?_r=0; Suzanne Kane, Hyundai Sued Over Elantra 40-MPG Ad Claims, HighGearMedia.com (WashingtonPost.com), Jul. 16, 2012, http://www.washingtonpost.com/cars/hyundai-sued-over-elantra-40-mpg-ad-claims/2012/07/15/gJQAXxK2lW_story.html.



14

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

motions to compel, and ordered Hyundai to produce documents and information in

response to the Consumer Watchdog Legal Team’s first set of discovery requests.

(Minute Order, Motion to Compel Requests for Production, Bird, Feb. 27, 2013;

Minute Order, Motion to Compel Special Interrogatories, Bird, Feb. 27, 2013.)

Consumer Watchdog attorneys also reviewed documents in the 11 productions

Hyundai made during this period. These documents provided information highly

relevant to the analysis of the strength of the legal claims in the MDL.

40. Between September and October, 2012, Consumer Watchdog

attorneys conducted legal research for and drafted the opposition to Hyundai’s

demurrer. However, prior to the deadline for filing the opposition, the EPA

announced that Hyundai and its sister company Kia had misstated the fuel

economy of approximately 20 of their 2011, 2012, and 2013 model year vehicles,

in both advertising, and on the window stickers (“Monroney Labels”) affixed to

each new vehicle sold, and that the companies would be adjusting the advertised

MPG values of all affected vehicles (“November 2012 EPA Announcement”).

Included in this announcement were the Elantra models that were the subject of

Bird.

41. Following the November 2012 EPA Announcement, the Consumer

Watchdog Legal Team associated in the firm of Cotchett, Pitre & McCarthy, LLP

to help prosecute the Bird case and other potential litigation against Hyundai and

Kia.

42. Consumer Watchdog attorneys amended the complaint in Bird on

November 27, 2012 to reflect the EPA’s determination (and Hyundai’s

acknowledgement) that the Elantra’s fuel economy had been inflated. In drafting

both the opposition to the demurrer and the First Amended Complaint in Bird,

Consumer Watchdog attorneys conducted legal research on the strength of the

claims, including preemption and primary jurisdiction issues raised by Hyundai.



15

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

43. After the MDL was initiated (discussed in detail below), Hyundai

moved to stay Bird two times. Consumer Watchdog attorneys reviewed and edited

drafts of the oppositions to Hyundai’s motions to stay Bird prepared by co-counsel.

The Sacramento Superior Court denied Hyundai’s first motion to stay on the

grounds that no class had been certified in the MDL. (Minute Order, Motion to

Stay Proceedings, Bird, Mar. 20, 2013.)

44. After this Court expressed concerns about Bird proceeding

simultaneously with the MDL, the Sacramento Superior Court stayed Bird

pending resolution of the MDL. (Minute Order, Motion for Reconsideration, Bird,

May 2, 2013.) Since then, Consumer Watchdog attorneys have drafted statements

and worked with Hyundai’s counsel to prepare joint stipulations updating the

Sacramento Superior Court regarding the status of the MDL.

45. Consumer Watchdog attorneys expended 375 hours during this

period, and have a total lodestar of $166,855.00, using their regular hourly rates.

C. Pre-filing investigation and preparation of complaints in Krauth and Hasper; the MDL Petition. (November 2, 2012 - February 13, 2013)

46. The November 2012 EPA Announcement confirmed the allegations

raised by Consumer Watchdog in its correspondence with the federal government.

Consumer Watchdog attorneys reviewed both the EPA statement and Hyundai and

Kia’s simultaneous announcement that they were adjusting the mileage of more

than a dozen models of their 2011, 2012, and 2013 vehicles. Consumer Watchdog

attorneys paid particular attention to the websites erected by Hyundai and Kia for

the “Voluntary Reimbursement Program” that the companies had established

ostensibly to pay consumers for “additional fuel costs associated with the fuel



16

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

economy rating change[,]”7 in order to evaluate the benefits the companies

proposed to make available to consumers.

47. Concluding that the Voluntary Reimbursement Program did not

adequately compensate affected consumers across the United States, Consumer

Watchdog attorneys drafted the Krauth complaint, filed on November 6, 2012, on

behalf of a national class of 2011, 2012, and 2013 Hyundai Elantra owners and

lessees, alleging causes of action under the CLRA, UCL, and FAL and for unjust

enrichment.

48. The November 2012 EPA Announcement spurred an onslaught of

similar class action complaints against Hyundai and Kia in federal courts across

the United States.8 After filing Krauth, the Consumer Watchdog Legal Team

concluded that it would be most efficient to invoke the MDL process and

centralize all federal cases in California. Consumer Watchdog attorneys reviewed

and revised drafts prepared by co-counsel of the petition to the Judicial Panel on

Multidistrict Litigation (“JPML”) to transfer similar cases to the Central District

of California, which resulted in this litigation.

49. Consumer Watchdog attorneys filed and served the MDL petition on

all parties in the related cases on November 19, 2012. Thereafter, Consumer

Watchdog attorneys reviewed class action complaints and documents filed in the

7 Press Release, Hyundai and Kia Initiate Voluntary Program to Adjust Fuel Economy Ratings on Select Vehicles, Nov. 2, 2012, https://hyundaimpginfo.com/news/details/hyundai-and-kia-initiate-voluntary-program-to-adjust-fuel-economy-ratings. 8 Among the new cases was Hunter v. Hyundai Motor America, Case No. 8:12-cv-01909 (C.D. Cal.), filed on November 2, 2012 by Hagens Berman Sobol Shapiro LLP, one of the Settling Plaintiffs’ firms who negotiated the Settlement Agreement. Like the Espinosa complaint, the Hunter complaint relies on a previous inquiry from Consumer Watchdog to the EPA and the White House. (Complaint at ¶49, Hunter (C.D. Cal. Nov. 2, 2012) (Dkt. 1).)



17

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

MDL proceeding related to the over 40 additional cases that were filed during this

period, and conferred with co-counsel regarding the filings and the MDL hearing.

50. The November 2012 EPA Announcement led to another large influx

of consumer complaints to Consumer Watchdog from affected Hyundai and Kia

owners across the country. Between November 2, 2012 through February 7, 2013,

Consumer Watchdog attorneys conducted dozens of telephonic conferences with

these consumers and reviewed numerous documents submitted by them

confirming their ownership or lease of an affected Hyundai or Kia vehicle and

providing information about the fuel economy advertisements that they had relied

upon when purchasing or leasing their vehicle.

51. Consumer Watchdog attorneys also performed factual and legal

research regarding Hyundai’s and Kia’s fuel economy representations for the 2011,

2012, and 2013 model year vehicles included in the November 2012 EPA

Announcement.

52. In order to ensure that the interests of all Hyundai and Kia owners

affected by the November 2012 EPA Announcement were protected, the

Consumer Watchdog Legal Team filed Hasper, a second federal complaint on

behalf of all Hyundai and Kia owners and lessees affected by the November 2012

EPA Announcement. Consumer Watchdog counsel drafted portions of the Hasper

complaint, filed on February 7, 2013. It names 12 plaintiffs from eight states who

owned or leased Hyundai or Kia vehicles, alleging causes of action under

California, Florida, Illinois, Connecticut, Texas, Indiana, and Arizona consumer

protection statutes.

53. Consumer Watchdog attorneys expended 457.1 hours during this




18

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

D. Settlement announcement and confirmatory discovery in the MDL. (February 14, 2013 - January, 2014)

54. As requested by the Consumer Watchdog Legal Team, the JPML

issued an order transferring all relevant cases to the Central District on February 5,

2013.9

55. At the first MDL status conference on February 14, 2013, attorneys

from two law firms (Hagens Berman Sobol Shapiro LLP and McCune Wright

LLP, on behalf of the Espinosa, Brady and Hunter plaintiffs (collectively,

“Settling Plaintiffs”)) announced they had “had four face-to-face meetings with

counsel for Hyundai” between the filing of Hunter and the first MDL status

conference, and that they had reached a settlement with Hyundai. (2/14/13 Hrg. Tr.

at 9:19-24.) The Consumer Watchdog Legal Team asked the Court to order the

terms of the settlement be provided to all plaintiffs’ counsel in the MDL. (Id. at

30:19 – 34:4.) The Court required the Settling Parties to provide the settlement

terms within one week. (Id.) (At the next MDL status conference on February 28,

2013, Hyundai declared that a settlement agreement would be produced within 60

days. (2/28/13 Hrg. Tr. at 12:6-7).)

56. Leadership Structure. After the announcement that a settlement of

the MDL had been reached, Consumer Watchdog counsel reviewed drafts of

statements to the Court prepared by co-counsel opposing the appointment of

Settling Plaintiffs’ law firms as lead counsel without full briefing on the issue.

(See Dkt. 6 at 4:20 – 5:22.) At the February 28, 2013 status conference, the Court

did not appoint Settling Plaintiffs as lead counsel. (2/28/13 Hrg. Tr. at 12:16-22.)

57. Prompted by the concerns expressed by the Consumer Watchdog

Legal Team at the hearing, the Court proposed to appoint a liaison counsel to

attend, but not participate in, settlement negotiations on behalf of the non-settling

9 On April 3, 2013, the District Court consolidated all of the MDL cases.



19

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

parties. The Court invited applications for the position. (See 2/28/13 Hrg. Tr. at

19:2-22; 33:2-9.)

58. In response to the Court’s invitation, Consumer Watchdog counsel

assisted in drafting a statement to the Court declining to apply for the liaison

counsel position given its constraints. (Dkt. 33.) On March 28, 2013, the Court

subsequently appointed Mr. Eric Gibbs as Liaison Counsel, with the support of

Consumer Watchdog Legal Team and other non-settling parties. (3/28/13 Hrg. Tr.

at 40:16 – 41:1.)

59. Working with Liaison Counsel. At the Court’s direction, non-

settling plaintiffs communicated with the Settling Plaintiffs and Hyundai and Kia

primarily through Liaison Counsel.

60. Throughout the entire confirmatory discovery process structured by

the Court (February, 2013 through January, 2014), described in paragraphs ¶61

through ¶84 below, Consumer Watchdog attorneys, with and through Liaison

Counsel, aggressively pursued information about the Settlement Agreement from

the Settling Parties, seeking full disclosure of the terms of the Settlement

Agreement and the underlying support for it during the 21 conference calls with

Liaison Counsel (on March 27; April 9; April 23; May 8; May 22; May 31; June

2; June 3; June 12; June 18; June 25; July 29; August 7; August 12; August 13;

August 14; August 16; August 21; August 27; September 23; December 16).

61. On these calls, Consumer Watchdog attorneys continuously proposed

hard deadlines for promised information or document productions, identified

insufficiencies in document productions and interviews, sought greater disclosure

of information to non-settling plaintiffs’ counsel, and worked to ensure non-

settling plaintiffs’ counsel had the opportunity to provide substantive input at

every step in the process.



20

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

62. Production of Pre-Settlement Discovery to All Non-Settling

Plaintiffs’ Counsel. The preeminent focus of the litigation during this time period

was the inquiry to determine how the terms of the settlement were reached and

whether the facts supported the proposed settlement as fair and reasonable. After

receiving a spreadsheet of the Lump Sum Payment values for Hyundai vehicles

and determining that it was unclear how each value was arrived at, Consumer

Watchdog attorneys urged the Court at a hearing on March 28, 2013, to require the

Settling Parties to provide information about the formulas (3/28/13 Hrg. Tr. at

13:3-14) and to produce to non-settling plaintiffs’ counsel all of the information

they had produced to Settling Plaintiffs’ counsel for their settlement discussions.

(Id. at 14:16-22.) The Court agreed, further requiring Settling Parties to include

non-settling plaintiffs’ counsel in all aspects of the confirmatory discovery process,

noting that when non-settling plaintiffs’ counsel “make a request for reasonable

information, that information should be provided.” (Id. at 14:16-22.) The Court

also agreed with Consumer Watchdog counsel that Defendants should produce a

privilege log of withheld documents. (Id. at 25:19 – 26:2.)

63. Having received none of the documents produced to Settling Parties

for the purpose of settlement negotiations, Consumer Watchdog counsel joined

with co-counsel at the April 11, 2013 hearing to insist that Defendants would to

timely produce the settlement discovery documents. (4/11/13 Hrg. Tr. at 13:1-

14:5.) The Court confirmed the documents would be timely produced and also

agreed with the Consumer Watchdog Legal Team that any additional discovery

documents Defendants produced to the Settling Parties and Liaison Counsel would

also be produced to all non-settling plaintiffs simultaneously. (Id. at 14:6-19.).

64. Challenging the Sufficiency of the Pre-Settlement Discovery.

After the Defendants produced the pre-settlement discovery documents to non-

settling plaintiffs, Consumer Watchdog attorneys reviewed a portion of the



21

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

documents, as well as memoranda summarizing the production prepared by

Liaison Counsel.

65. Through this review process, it became apparent that the Settling

Plaintiffs had not obtained much, if any, substantive discovery prior to announcing

their settlement on February 14, 2013. In response to comments from Consumer

Watchdog counsel concerning the paucity of pre-settlement discovery, the Court

ordered additional confirmatory discovery. For example, Consumer Watchdog

counsel noted that none of the pre-settlement discovery documents revealed how

the Defendants’ inaccurate fuel economy data had led to the erroneous advertising

campaign. (4/25/14 Hrg. Tr. at 23:5-9.) In response, the Court stated, “I want the

confirmatory discovery to go into that area.” (Id. at 24:12-13.) Liaison Counsel

confirmed with the Court that Consumer Watchdog attorneys would be involved

in drafting additional discovery requests. (See id. at 7:15-20.)

66. Pursuit of Further Discovery. In consultation with the Consumer

Watchdog Legal Team and Liaison Counsel, Consumer Watchdog counsel

assisted in drafting and sent a letter to Settling Plaintiffs’ counsel on April 29,

2013, identifying in detail how the documents produced were insufficient to

evaluate the settlement term sheet and Lump Sum Payment chart. The letter

sought the previous discovery requests served by Settling Plaintiffs on Defendants

and demanded additional information about: the calculations and variables used to

determine the Hyundai Lump Sum Payment amounts; the interviews that the

Settling Plaintiffs were planning to conduct in Korea (without any non-settling

plaintiffs); and support for the Kia settlement since no discovery whatsoever had

been produced from Kia. (Ex. F, a true and correct copy of the letter dated April

29, 2013, from Consumer Watchdog counsel to Settling Plaintiffs’ counsel.)

Consumer Watchdog counsel also demanded a copy of Settling Plaintiffs’



26

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

Defendants had refused to respond (on October 16, 2013; November 7, 2013;

December 10, 2013; and January 3, 2014).

84. After attempts at informally resolving discovery issues with Hyundai

failed, counsel for Consumer Watchdog performed research for and drafted

portions of the Joint Discovery Stipulation, filed November 21, 2013 (Dkt. 154),

and a Supplemental Discovery Memorandum, filed November 25, 2013 (Dkt. 157),

and attended a December 9, 2013 hearing on the privilege log and document

request issues. (See Dkt. 182.) After the hearing, Hyundai revised its privilege log

and produced additional documents to all plaintiffs’ counsel. The Court then

undertook an in camera review of the sufficiency of Hyundai’s privilege assertions,

as Consumer Watchdog’s Legal Team had requested. (See 12/9/13 Hrg. Tr. at 9:17

– 11:2; Dkt. 201.)

85. Throughout this period, Consumer Watchdog counsel actively

communicated by phone and email with its 14 clients, providing updates about the

status of the litigation and discussing their ongoing fuel economy issues. Also

throughout this period, Consumer Watchdog counsel responded to a large volume

of consumer complaints from Class Members.

86. Consumer Watchdog attorneys expended 618.1 hours during this


E. The Process of Improving the Settlement Agreement. (December 23, 2013 – December 18, 2014)

87. Initial Analysis of Settlement Terms. Settling Parties finally filed

the Settlement Agreement on December 23, 2013. The Court ordered that all non-

settling plaintiffs’ counsel submit their positions on the Settlement.

88. Consumer Watchdog attorneys drafted a detailed 14-page analysis of

the Settlement Agreement, submitted to Liaison Counsel and all other non-settling



27

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

plaintiffs’ counsel on January 22, 2014 and filed with the Court on January 30,

2014 by Liaison Counsel. (Dkt. 211-3.)

89. In developing their analysis of the monetary compensation available

under the Settlement Agreement, counsel for Consumer Watchdog collected

mileage information from the 14 named Plaintiffs in Bird, Krauth, and Hasper and

undertook a detailed examination of what each Plaintiff would each get under the

Settlement and Voluntary Reimbursement Program.

90. The analysis of the settlement circulated by Consumer Watchdog

attorneys raised serious issues regarding the notice and claims process, the amount

of monetary compensation that would be available to Class Members, and the

provision permitting Hyundai and Kia to keep unclaimed and expired funds. (Dkt.

211-3.) As set forth in Liaison Counsel’s January 30, 2014 report to the Court,

there was widespread agreement among the non-settling plaintiffs’ counsel that

the 13-page long form notice, the 11-step claim form and the claims process were

deeply flawed. (See Dkt. 211.)

91. Between January and May 2014, counsel for Consumer Watchdog

reviewed meet and confer letters, memoranda, and emails between Liaison

Counsel and Settling Plaintiffs and Defendants regarding many of the issues raised

in Consumer Watchdog’s January 22, 2014 analysis, and others. During this time,

Consumer Watchdog counsel participated in five teleconferences with Liaison

Counsel. Subsequently the Settlement was amended twice. First, on January 16,

2014, the Settlement Agreement was amended to extend the additional “4 x 40”

compensation to certain qualified former owners. (Dkt. 206.) Again, on May 2,

2014, the Settlement Agreement was amended to provide that Hyundai and Kia

would send Class Members a postcard notice in lieu of the long form notice and

claim form. (Dkt. 226-1, Ex. A.) The second amendment also provided that

Hyundai and Kia would establish an online claim form website so Class Members



28

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

could electronically submit claims, as suggested in Consumer Watchdog’s January

22, 2014 analysis. (Id. at § 1.2.)

92. Shortly after the second amendment to the Settlement Agreement in

May, 2014, all but two of the other non-settling plaintiffs’ firms supported, no

longer objected, or did not state their position regarding the Settlement.

93. Consumer Watchdog Legal Team Opposes Settlement, Court

Requires Improvements in Lengthy Process. The Consumer Watchdog Legal

Team carefully reviewed the proposed settlement and, after consultations with our

clients, concluded that the proposed settlement was not fair, reasonable, or

adequate. Of the 58 other firms not originally involved in the settlement, only the

Consumer Watchdog Legal Team and two others filed oppositions.10

94. Consumer Watchdog counsel performed factual and legal research

and prepared a 24-page Opposition to the Motion for Preliminary Approval, filed

on May 30, 2014. (Dkt. 236.) The Opposition argued that the Court should reject

preliminary approval because the class notices (post card and long form) and the

claims form were highly confusing, the claims process was onerous, and

unnecessary in any event. Due to the inadequacies of the notice, it was likely that

relatively few Class Members would be able to avail themselves of the relief

ostensibly provided by the settlement. Moreover, Consumer Watchdog’s

opposition argued, Hyundai and Kia had structured the settlement in this manner

to improperly escape accountability for their misconduct because the proposed

10 Plaintiff in Wilson v. Kia Motors America, Case No. 2:13-cv-01625-GW-FFM (C.D. Cal.), represented by the law firm of Lewis G. Adler, Esquire, is the only other plaintiff that joined the Plaintiffs represented by the Consumer Watchdog Legal Team in their opposition to the settlement terms. (Dkt. 238.) Plaintiffs in Gentry, et al. v. Hyundai Motor America, Case No. 2:14-cv-01359-GW-FFM (C.D. Cal.) also filed an opposition to the Settlement on behalf of a class of Hyundai Elantra owners in Virginia, largely on the grounds that it improperly denied his clients, Virginia residents, their rights. (Dkt. 234.)



29

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

settlement permitted Hyundai and Kia to keep all unclaimed and expired funds

(the “reverter”). The Opposition also argued it was improper for Hyundai and Kia

to administer the Settlement.

95. In response to Consumer Watchdog’s opposition, on June 24, 2014,

Hyundai and Kia filed a second set of notice and claim forms. (Dkt. 264.)

Defendants replaced their proposed illegible postcard notice with a larger short-

form mailer with larger font. (Dkt. 264-2.) On June 25, 2014, Consumer

Watchdog counsel filed and served a response, highlighting the problems with the

new short-form mailer and providing a mocked-up example of a short-form mailer

that would cure the deficiencies in what Settling Parties proposed. (Dkt. 266.)

96. On June 26, 2014, the Court agreed with Consumer Watchdog

counsel that there were “major problems” with the Settling Parties’ proposed

notice. (6/26/14 Hrg. Tr. at 11:7-8.) The Court denied the motion for preliminary

approval, emphasizing the concerns raised by Consumer Watchdog counsel that

the notice documents did not contain relevant facts and were not calculated to

catch the attention of Class Members. (See Dkt. 267, June 26, 2014 Tentative

Ruling, at 21.) The Court ordered the parties to revise the format and content of

the notice documents and also provide email notice to Class Members.

97. The Court rejected Consumer Watchdog counsel’s argument

concerning the reverter, but stated that if the class claims rate was low, the Court

would be prepared to require additional measures to ensure that the class received

the compensation it was entitled to. (6/26/14 Hrg. Tr. at 47:11-14.)

98. On July 9, 2014, the Defendants submitted a third set of notice and

claim forms, revised to address Consumer Watchdog counsel’s concerns. (Dkt.

271.) Consumer Watchdog counsel drafted a supplemental brief explaining how

the Settling Parties’ revised short-form mailer failed to include relevant

information and was not calculated to catch the attention of the recipient. (Dkt.



30

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

277.) Consumer Watchdog counsel also pointed out that Settling Parties had not

provided information about how the Lump Sum Payments were calculated, which

was needed to evaluate the monetary compensation under the Settlement. (Id.)

99. On July 24, 2014, the Court issued a tentative ruling stating that it

“agree[d] with the Krauth and Hasper plaintiffs that there are ways in which the

notice forms and claims website could be improved further.” (See July 24, 2104

Tentative Ruling at 4.) The Court, addressing the issues raised by Consumer

Watchdog counsel in their supplemental brief and comments at the hearing:

• ordered the Settling Parties to revise their notice and claim forms so they

are not “overly complicated in their explanation of settlement options” and

they properly explain “how prior participation in the Reimbursement

Program affects a class member’s options” (July 24, 2104 Tentative Ruling

at 4, fn. 1);

• ordered the Settling Parties to provide a detailed explanation about how

they calculated the Lump Sum Payments (see Dkt. 297); and

• ordered the Settling Parties to submit reports on Class Member participation

after the claims process begins, and stated that the Court would require a

secondary notice if the claims rates were low. (See July 24, 2104 Tentative

Ruling at 4, fn. 1.)

100. Even after the Court’s June and July 2014 orders, the Court required

multiple further rounds of revisions to finally get the notice and claim documents

in an acceptable format. Between August and September 2014, Consumer

Watchdog counsel reviewed three additional sets of notice and claim forms

(August 1; August 15; and September 12) and provided four sets of line-by-line,

word-for-word, redlined edits and comments on the revised notice and claim

forms (August 11; August 18; August 25; and September 19), each time pointing



31

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

out unnecessary, burdensome steps; problems with the text that made the

compensation options unclear; and typos and formatting issues.

101. Consumer Watchdog counsel attended three court hearings (August

21; September 10; and September 29), each of which dedicated significant time to

Consumer Watchdog’s detailed comments about the confusing language in the

notice and claim forms. At each of the hearings, the Court ordered the Settling

Parties to revise the specific language in the notice and claim forms pursuant to

Consumer Watchdog counsel’s comments and suggestions. This pain-staking, but

extremely important, process finally concluded on October 3, 2014, when the

Court approved the notice and claim documents.

102. In response to Consumer Watchdog’s filings and comments at

hearings during this period, the Court also ordered the Defendants to submit a

declaration on whether they could obtain vehicle registration information that

would negate the need for a claim form for former owners, and a report ensuring

they had informed their call center representatives to provide a telephone number

for Settling Plaintiffs’ counsel, since the information is not contained in the notice.

Defendants did so. (Dkts. 320, 363.)

103. Throughout this period, Consumer Watchdog counsel would actively

communicate by phone and email with its 14 clients, providing updates about the

status of the litigation and discussing the terms of the Settlement and the clients’

potential compensation under the Settlement and Voluntary Reimbursement

Program. Also throughout this period, Consumer Watchdog counsel responded to

a large volume of consumer complaints from affected consumers.

104. Consumer Watchdog attorneys expended 1,104.7 hours during this


105. The record of the proceedings of this litigation – by necessity

summarized in this declaration – demonstrates that Consumer Watchdog attorneys



32

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

and their co-counsel played a unique and significant role in exposing and

addressing the injustice of the Defendants’ misrepresentations.

106. Though the Defendants reached a settlement with other plaintiffs’

lawyers before this MDL had even begun, the Consumer Watchdog Legal Team

worked unceasingly to improve the settlement and maximize the benefits of the

settlement for the class. The Court has correctly stated that it will revisit the

claims process should the claims rate be low. As noted above at paragraph 22, we

are prepared to continue our efforts on behalf of our clients and the class.

VII. LITIGATION COSTS AND EXPENSES

107. From the inception of this litigation through December 18, 2014,

Consumer Watchdog paid or incurred costs and expenses in the sum of $4,670.20.

These unreimbursed costs and expenses were reasonably and necessarily incurred

in the prosecution of this Litigation, and are broken down as follows:

Explanation of Expense Amount

Filing fees

$1,424.50

Federal Express and court delivery service

$1,122.27

Photocopies

$877.26

Travel/Meals

$675.41

Hearing transcripts

$392.81

Telephone conference calls $138.75

Online legal research $39.50

TOTAL $4,670.20



33

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

108. The costs and expenses paid and incurred are reflected on the books

and records of Consumer Watchdog. These books and records are prepared from

checks and expense vouchers that are regularly kept and maintained by Consumer

Watchdog in the ordinary course of business and accurately reflect the costs and

expenses incurred. Consumer Watchdog’s expenses were reasonably expended to

prosecute this matter. Law firms in the Los Angeles area customarily bill

separately from the base hourly rate for such out-of-pocket expenses. Consumer

Watchdog’s requested out-of-pocket expenses are not customarily considered

covered by the base hourly rate as part of the overhead, but are routinely billed

separately.

VIII. THE KRAUTH, HASPER, AND BIRD PLAINTIFFS’

CONTRIBUTION

109. All 14 of the Consumer Watchdog Legal Team’s clients in Krauth

(Gunther Krauth), Hasper (Linda Hasper, Kelly Moffett, Evan Grogan, Carlos

Medina, Alberto Dominguez, Catherine Bernard, Michael Breien, Laura Gill,

Thomas Schille, Judith Stanton, Randy Rickert and Bryan Zirkel) and Bird (Louis

Bird) have been actively involved in this case since prior to the filing of each

action, and throughout the course of the litigation. These Plaintiffs have expended

hours providing me and the Consumer Watchdog Legal Team with documents and

information about their Hyundai and Kia vehicles. They approved the filing of the

original complaints in the relevant actions and the allegations about their

situations. They reviewed relevant pleadings have been in routine contact with me

to discuss the status of their cases and the progress of the Settlement throughout

this action.

///

///

///



34

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

110. I declare under penalty of perjury that the foregoing is true and

correct. Executed this 23th day of December, 2014 at Santa Monica, California.

By: ____________________ Laura Antonini


EXHIBIT A


Consumer Watchdog Legal Project Consumer Watchdog is a non-profit, non-partisan, consumer research and advocacy organization founded in 1985 by consumer attorney and advocate Harvey Rosenfield. Its mission is to provide an effective voice for taxpayers and consumers in an era when special interests dominate public discourse, government, and politics. The organization deploys public interest attorneys, policy experts, strategists, and grassroots activists to expose, confront, and change unjust practices in the private and public sectors. Consumer Watchdog's Legal Project attorneys advocate for consumers' rights and hold corporations and government officials accountable in federal and state courts and before regulatory agencies. The Legal Project specializes in highly complex litigation, including class actions in federal and state courts, to address abuses in the marketplace such as illegal overcharges, false advertising, and violation of consumer protection laws. Some of our most notable accomplishments include:

• Settled a class action against United Health Care for illegally requiring HIV/AIDS patients to purchase their medications from a mail-order pharmacy, threatening their health and privacy. As a result of the settlement, United Health Care members prescribed HIV/AIDS medications have a right to opt-out of the mail-order program at any time. The company also agreed to reimburse consumers for out of pocket losses resulting from the mail order requirement.

• Settled a class action against Blue Cross for illegally requiring HIV/AIDS patients to purchase their medications from a mail-order pharmacy, threatening their health and privacy. As a result of the settlement, Blue Cross members prescribed HIV/AIDS medications have a right to opt-out of the mail-order program at any time. The company also agreed to reimburse consumers for out of pocket losses resulting from the mail order requirement.

• Settled a class action against Blue Cross for illegally closing insurance policies and using large rate hikes to force patients into lower-benefit and higher-deductible health coverage – a practice known as the "death spiral." Relief obtained included a cap on future rate increases and the opportunity for plan members to switch coverage, without medical underwriting, to any open policy regulated by the California Department of Managed Health Care.

• Settled a class action against the Auto Club requiring the insurer to pay $22.5 million in refunds to policyholders who were overcharged for not having prior insurance, a practice that is prohibited by insurance reform Proposition 103.

• Secured a consumer’s right to enforce the Insurance Code in court under the state’s Unfair Competition Law in a case against Mercury for illegally surcharging drivers without prior insurance.

• Obtained an order from the Insurance Commissioner approving a settlement agreement requiring Farmers

Insurance to refund $1.2 million in premium overcharges and pay a $2 million fine to the State of California for utilizing improper homeowners insurance underwriting practices.


• Successfully blocked insurance rate hike requests by dozens of insurance companies, saving Californians over $3 billion on their auto, homeowners, earthquake, and medical malpractice insurance between 2003 and 2013.

Consumer Watchdog’s attorneys have taken the lead role – authored comprehensive appellate briefs and participated in oral argument – in numerous landmark cases resulting in published appellate and California Supreme Court opinions upholding consumer protection statutes:

• Consumer Watchdog et al. v. Department of Managed Health Care et al. (2014) 225 Cal.App.4th 862 (counsel

for petitioner Consumer Watchdog) – holding that the Department of Managed Health Care can no longer uphold a health plan’s denial of coverage for autism treatment provided or supervised by a nationally board-certified individual on the basis that the provider is not licensed

• Association of California Insurance Companies v. Poizner (2009) 180 Cal.App.4th 1029 (counsel for intervenor Consumer Watchdog) – upholding Department of Insurance regulations consistently with the language and purpose of Proposition 103 to promote consumer participation in rate proceedings

• In re Tobacco II (2009) 207 P.3d 20 (counsel for amicus curiae Consumer Watchdog) – holding that Prop 64 standing requirements apply only to named plaintiffs and not unnamed putative class members

• Karnan v. Safeco Ins. Co. of America (2009) 173 Cal.App.4th 814 (counsel for plaintiff) – allowing plaintiff in a UCL action to proceed with pre-certification discovery to locate class members

• Fogel v. Farmers Group, Inc. (2008) 160 Cal.App.4th 1403 (counsel for amicus curiae Consumer Watchdog) – allowing a UCL action to proceed against an insurer challenging as excessive fees paid by policyholders to the insurer’s management company

• Foundation for Taxpayer and Consumer Rights v. Garamendi (2005) 132 Cal.App.4th 1354 (counsel for

plaintiff) – overturning an illegal legislative amendment to Proposition 103 that would have allowed illegal surcharges to drivers who lacked prior insurance coverage

• State Farm Mutual Automobile Ins. Co. v. Garamendi (2004) 32 Cal.4th 1029 (counsel for amicus curiae FTCR) – upholding against industry challenge Department of Insurance regulations requiring the public disclosure of insurance redlining data submitted to the Insurance Commissioner as required by Proposition 103

• Donabedian v. Mercury Ins. Co. (2004) 116 Cal.App.4th 968 (counsel for amicus curiae Consumer Watchdog) – upholding consumers’ right to bring a UCL action to enforce Proposition 103

• Proposition 103 Enforcement Project v. Quackenbush (1998) 64 Cal.App.4th 1473 (counsel for plaintiff) –

invalidating an illegal legislative amendment to Proposition 103 that would have decreased the amount of refunds owed to policyholders under the initiative’s rate rollback provision.

• Amwest Surety Ins. Co. v. Wilson (1995) 11 Cal.4th 1243 (counsel for intervenor) – Cal. Supreme Court decision invalidating an illegal legislative amendment to Proposition 103 that would have exempted surety insurance from regulation

• 20th Century Ins. Co. v. Garamendi (1994) 8 Cal.4th 216 (counsel for intervenor) – Cal. Supreme Court decision upholding insurance rate regulations enforcing Proposition 103’s prohibition against excessive or inadequate rates

• Calfarm Ins. Co. v. Deukmejian (1989) 48 Cal.3d 805 (counsel for intervenor) – Cal. Supreme Court decision upholding Proposition 103 against constitutional challenge by the insurance industry


Consumer Watchdog’s Legal Project is currently litigating high impact consumer protection lawsuits and administrative actions, including:

• A California class action challenging DIRECTV’s unconscionable contract terms, including the imposition of an early cancellation penalty on people who discontinue DIRECTV’s services before the expiration of a supposed 18-24 month term commitment, even when the satellite TV receiver leased from DIRECTV stops working or a customer moves to an area where the service is no longer available. (Imburgia et al. v. DIRECTV (L.A. County Super. Ct.), Nos. BC 398295 and BC398431.)

• An administrative enforcement action against Mercury Insurance Company for charging excessive and unfairly

discriminatory rates by allowing its agents to charge illegal broker fees at the point of sale. (In the Matter of Mercury Ins. Co., et al. (Cal. Dept. Ins.), No. NC03027545.)

• A class action against Blue Shield for violating California law by routinely closing more desirable health plans to

new customers and then forcing out existing policyholders by sharply increasing their premiums without offering them the option to switch to plans with comparable coverage. (Martin, et al. v. California Physicians’ Service, dba Blue Shield of California, et al. (S.F. Super. Ct.), No. CGC-12-521539.)

• A class action against Blue Cross for violating California law by dramatically increasing “annual” deductibles in

the middle of the year and announcing that the company may now change any terms of consumers’ contracts each month, including which health care services and benefits are covered. (Kassouf, et al. v. Blue Cross of California (L.A. Super. Ct.), No. BC473408.)

Brief Biographies of Consumer Watchdog Attorneys

Harvey Rosenfield (Of Counsel) is one of the nation's foremost consumer lawyers and the founder of Consumer Watchdog (1985). Rosenfield has organized and led countless consumer protection lawsuits and administrative proceedings. Rosenfield authored insurance reform Proposition 103 and organized the campaign that led to its passage by California voters in 1988. He has also authored or co-authored legislative proposals on patient safety, insurance and utility rate regulation. Rosenfield is the author of the book, Silent Violence, Silent Death: The Hidden Epidemic of Medical Malpractice. (Essential Books, 1994). Rosenfield has worked for the Federal Trade Commission, the U.S. Congress, as a staff attorney for Public Citizen Congress Watch and as the Program Director for the California Public Interest Research Group (CALPIRG). Rosenfield graduated magna cum laude from Amherst College (1974) and obtained a joint Law and Masters degree in Foreign Service from Georgetown University (1979). He received an honorary doctorate from Amherst in 2010. He is admitted to practice in D.C. (1979) and California (1986). Pamela Pressley is Consumer Watchdog’s Litigation Director, heading up Consumer Watchdog's litigation and regulatory efforts since 1999. Pressley has served as lead counsel in challenges to insurance industry rate hike proposals resulting in savings to California policyholders of over $3 billion since 2003. Additionally, Pressley has led Consumer Watchdog's efforts to enforce Proposition 103's mandates to protect California insurance policyholders against discriminatory practices and premium overcharges, including through rulemaking proceedings before the California Department of Insurance and court actions. Pressley has also authored numerous appellate briefs and presented oral argument in cases seeking to enforce Proposition 103 and California’s consumer


protection laws. Currently, she is one of the lead attorneys in a certified class action against DIRECTV challenging its illegal early cancellation penalties. Pressley received her B.A. in Sociology from UCLA and her J.D. from Pepperdine University School of Law. She was admitted to the California Bar in 1995. Before joining Consumer Watchdog, Pressley worked for CALPIRG as its Consumer Attorney and as a staff attorney for the Center for Law in the Public Interest, a non-profit, public interest law firm specializing in consumer, environmental, and civil rights advocacy and litigation. Laura Antonini is a staff attorney who has worked on civil litigation and regulatory matters in all of Consumer Watchdog’s focus areas. She previously volunteered as an intern for Consumer Watchdog during her undergraduate education in 2004, helping organize the Rx Express, a campaign calling attention to the high cost of prescription drugs for senior citizens. She decided to return to Consumer Watchdog as a volunteer attorney in early 2011, and then joined the team full time in Spring 2011.

During law school, Antonini conducted legal and scientific research on several projects, including the development of carbon dioxide quantification software for businesses and municipalities, and water quality and environmental compliance assessments of the Golden Gate National Recreation Area and Point Reyes National Seashore. Prior to joining Consumer Watchdog, Antonini tutored and mentored law school students and recent law school graduates for the California Bar Exam, and also co-authored a “How To” book for law students, focused on legal writing.

Antonini received a B.S. in Environmental Biology and Management from University of California, Davis, and a J.D. from Pace University School of Law, with a specialization in Environmental Law. Antonini was admitted to the California Bar in 2010.


EXHIBIT B


In re Hyundai and Kia Fuel Economy Litigation CONSUMER WATCHDOG LODESTAR CHART

NAME HOURS RATE LODESTAR

Harvey Rosenfield 806.50 $925/hr $746,012.50 Pamela Pressley 175.30 $650/hr $113,945.00 Laura Antonini 1,796.40 $350/hr $628,740.00

TOTAL 2,778.2 $1,488,697.50


Case 2:13-ml-02424-GW-FFM Document 371-2 Filed … of laura antonini iso krauth/hasper plaintiffs’...

Documents

Transcript of Case 2:13-ml-02424-GW-FFM Document 371-2 Filed … of laura antonini iso krauth/hasper plaintiffs’...