In re Chevy Bolt EV Battery Litigation

Summary

The United States District Court for the Eastern District of Michigan ruled on five motions for reconsideration concerning the validity of requests to opt out of the settlement in the In re Chevy Bolt EV Battery Litigation. The court denied four motions and granted one in part, recognizing Margaret Landy’s opt-out request after the Settlement Administrator had inadvertently rejected it as duplicative. The court otherwise upheld the requirements for timely, personally signed opt-out requests and concluded that class members whose opt-outs were invalid could still submit settlement claims.

Holdings

1. A motion to reconsider a non-final order under E.D. Mich. LR 7.1(h)(2)(A) requires the movant to show a court mistake, that correction of the mistake would change the prior outcome, and that the mistake was based on the record and law existing when the prior decision was entered.
2. Movants who submitted electronically signed opt-out requests did not establish grounds for reconsideration where the court had previously required personal physical signatures and had already rejected the same substantial-compliance arguments.
3. Due process did not require the Settlement Administrator to notify class members of defects in their opt-out requests or provide an opportunity to cure where the class received fully descriptive notice explaining the right, time, and manner of opting out.
4. The MFS Legal Inc. movants were not entitled to reconsideration, an extension of the opt-out deadline, or treatment of previously submitted mass opt-out requests as valid.
5. Strategic Legal Practices, LLP's motion for reconsideration was untimely because it was filed more than 14 days after entry of the order being challenged.
6. Margaret Landy submitted a valid and timely opt-out request, and her name was properly added to the amended exclusion list.
7. Due process did not require a second objection period for class members whose opt-out requests were invalid, and the request for such an opportunity was denied as a new argument raised for the first time on reconsideration.

Questions Presented

1. Whether Gomez and Tasharrofi demonstrated a qualifying mistake warranting reconsideration of the prior determination that electronically signed opt-out requests were invalid.
2. Whether due process required the Settlement Administrator to notify class members of defects in their opt-out requests and provide an opportunity to cure.
3. Whether MFS Legal Inc.'s and Strategic Legal Practices, LLP's movants were entitled to an extension of the opt-out deadline or validation of mass opt-out requests.
4. Whether Strategic Legal Practices, LLP's motion was timely under E.D. Mich. LR 7.1(h)(2).
5. Whether the Manookian Movants demonstrated a qualifying mistake concerning Margaret Landy's opt-out request, the personal-signature requirement, the percentage of valid opt-outs, or the availability of recovery and a second opportunity to object.

Disposition

other