United States of America v. Takata Corporation

Filing 11

ORDER denying Motions to establish crime victim status 8 and 9 Signed by District Judge George Caram Steeh. (MBea)

Download PDF
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN SOUTHERN DIVISION UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff, CASE NO. 17-mc-50300 HON. GEORGE CARAM STEEH v. TAKATA CORPORATION, Defendant. / ORDER DENYING MOTIONS TO ESTABLISH CRIME VICTIM STATUS (Doc. 8 and 9) On February 27, 2017, Takata Corporation (“Takata”) pled guilty to one count of wire fraud in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 1343, arising out of its fraudulent misrepresentations regarding its defective airbag inflators to Original Equipment Manufacturers (“OEMs”). On the same date, the court entered a Restitution Order requiring, among other things, that Takata pay restitution in the amount of $125,000,000 to the individuals who suffered or will suffer personal injury caused by the malfunction of a Takata airbag inflator who have not already resolved their claims against Takata. Now before the court are two motions (Doc. 8 and 9) filed pro se by Oleg Yarin. Yarin seeks an order from this court and a designation by the United States -1- Attorney’s Office establishing that he is the victim of crimes perpetuated by Takata because his automobile has allegedly been fitted with a defective Takata airbag. Yarin does not allege that he suffered any personal injury as a result of a defective Takata airbag inflator. As a result, Yarin is not covered by the Restitution Order. Accordingly, Yarin’s motions (Doc. 8 and 9) are DENIED. IT IS SO ORDERED. Dated: August 28, 2017 s/George Caram Steeh GEORGE CARAM STEEH UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE Copies of this Order were served upon attorneys of record on August 28, 2017, by electronic and/or ordinary mail and also on Oleg Yarin, 7360 Ulmerton Road, Apt. 3C, Largo, FL 33771. s/Barbara Radke Deputy Clerk -2-

Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.

Why Is My Information Online?