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)
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?