In re Automotive Parts Antitrust Litigation

Case # 12-md-02311
Case Name In re Automotive Parts Antitrust Litigation
Jurisdiction US District Court for E.D. MI

This lawsuit concerns whether the Defendants took anti-competative steps to artificially increase the cost of automotive components.  As a result, Defendants were able to realize inflated profits at the expense of car manufacturers and vehicle purchasers.

Final Approval Date 06/20/2016
  1. Final Approval granted.
  2. The District Court, under the authority of Rule 23(e)(5), issued an order requiring that withdrawal of objections receive Court approval.  It also required that any payment made to an objector, as a condition of withdrawing their objection or appeal, be disclosed to the Court.
  3. The Appeal is ongoing.
Dismissal of Last Appeal ongoing
Attachments Docket Report.pdf
Corrected Consolidated Amended Class Action Complaint.pdf
Preliminary Approval Order.pdf
Omnibus Response to Objections.pdf
Order Prohibiting Payment to Objectors.pdf
Final Approval Order.pdf
Added to Index
Last Updated

Objection of Carlene Cross, Albert Graham, Jr.

Objectors Carlene Cross
Albert Graham, Jr.
Signers N. Albert Bacharach, Jr.
Attorneys N. Albert Bacharach, Jr.
  1. Settlement language is unclear and ambiguous, making it difficult for potential class members to discern their membership.
  2. Attorneys' fees are excessive.

The Cross objections were withdrawn in the face of subpoenas, which the Northern District of Florida upheld (see Order Denying Motion to Quash).  The Cross objectors then attempted to withdraw their withdrawal and move forward with their objection.  The reinstatement of these objections was opposed by Class Counsel.

Attachments Objection of Carlene Cross.pdf
Withdrawal of Cross Objection.pdf
Reinstatement of Cross Objection.pdf
Response to Reinstatement of Cross Objection.pdf
Declaration in Response to Cross Objections.pdf
Exhibits to Declaration in Response to Cross Objections.pdf
Motion to Quash Subpoena of Objector Cross.pdf
Order Denying Motion to Quash Cross Subpoena.pdf
Added to Index
Last Updated

Objection of James Sciaroni

Objectors James Sciaroni
Signers Joseph J. Dadich
Attorneys Joseph J. Dadich
  1. Class definition is insufficient.
  2. Settlement cannot be effectively managed.
  3. Release is overbroad.
  4. Attorneys' fees are excessive.
Attachments Objection of James Sciaroni.pdf
Withdrawal of Sciaroni Objection.pdf
Added to Index
Last Updated

Objection of Olen York, Amy York, Nancy York

Objectors Olen York
Amy York
Nancy York
Signers Olen York
Amy York
Nancy York
Attorneys George W. Cochran
  1. Class definition in ineffectual, leading to an unmanageable class.
  2. 2. Cy pres provisions are improper.
  3. Attorneys' fees are unreasonable.
Attachments Objection of Olen York et al.pdf
Appeal of York Objectors.pdf
Appeal Docket.pdf
Added to Index
Last Updated

Objection of Patrick Sweeney

Objectors Patrick Sweeney
Signers Patrick Sweeney
  1. Claims administration lacks acceptable oversight.
    • No time frame exists for claims disbursement.
  2. Attorneys' fees are excessive and not tied to the recovery by the class.
  3. Cy pres provisions are not adequately articulated.
  4. Injunctive relief only lasts two years.
Attachments Objection of Patrick Sweeney.pdf
Added to Index
Last Updated

Objection of Steven F. Helfand

Objectors Steven F. Helfand
Signers Steven F. Helfand
  1. Clear sailing provisions are improper.
  2. Attorneys' fees are excessive.
    • Lodestar calculations should be favored.
Attachments Objection of Steven F. Helfand.pdf
Added to Index
Last Updated