Hoffer v. Audi of America

Filing 22

ORDER by Judge Charles R. Breyer denying 19 Motion to Opt Out of Class Action Settlement; denying 20 Motion for Summary Judgment. (crblc4, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 4/26/2018)

1
2
3
4

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

5

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

6
7
8
9
10

United States District Court
Northern District of California

11
12
13
14
15

IN RE: VOLKSWAGEN “CLEAN DIESEL”
MARKETING, SALES PRACTICES, AND
PRODUCTS LIABILITY LITIGATION
_____________________________________/
This Order Relates To:
MDL Dkt. Nos. 4948, 4949

MDL No. 2672 CRB (JSC)

ORDER DENYING MATTHEW G.
HOFFER’S MOTIONS TO OPT OUT
OF CLASS ACTION SETTLEMENT
AND FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT

Hoffer v. Audi of America, LLC,
Case No. 16-cv-2620-CRB, Dkt. Nos. 19, 20
(N.D. Cal.)
______________________________________/
Matthew Hoffer, the owner of a 2011 Audi A3 TDI vehicle, is a member of the nationwide

16

2.0-liter TDI settlement class. In two pro se motions, he respectively seeks to opt out of the

17

settlement and to obtain summary judgment on claims that he filed against Audi prior to the

18

settlement. Mr. Hoffer’s opt-out motion is untimely, as he filed it more than eighteen months after

19

the opt-out deadline. (See MDL Dkt. No. 4948 (March 28, 2018 motion filing date); MDL Dkt.

20

No. 1685, Settlement Agreement § 2.51 (setting September 16, 2016 as the opt-out deadline).) A

21

class member who seeks to opt out of a class action settlement after the applicable deadline has

22

passed must show that excusable neglect or good cause excuses the delay. Silber v. Mabon, 18

23

F.3d 1449, 1455 (9th Cir. 1994). The Court has reviewed Mr. Hoffer’s opt-out motion and his

24

reply brief and concludes that he has not made such a showing. The Court therefore DENIES his

25

opt-out motion.

26

Mr. Hoffer’s claims against Audi, for which he seeks summary judgment, all relate to

27

Audi’s use of a defeat device in his vehicle. Under the settlement, Mr. Hoffer and the other class

28

members agreed to release such claims. (See MDL Dkt. No. 1685, Settlement Agreement §§ 2.1,

1

9.3, 9.4 (releasing all claims against Audi that relate to the 2.0-liter TDI Matter, which includes

2

claims related to “the installation or presence of any Defeat Device or other auxiliary emission

3

control device in any Eligible Vehicle”).) Because Mr. Hoffer has released his claims against

4

Audi, the Court DENIES his motion for summary judgment and dismisses his individual suit with

5

prejudice.

6
7
8
9

Finding the motions suitable for disposition without oral argument, the Court VACATES
the hearing set for May 4, 2018. See Civil Local Rule 7–1(b).
IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated: April 26, 2018

10
CHARLES R. BREYER
United States District Judge

United States District Court
Northern District of California

11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
2