Court Grants Preliminary Approval of $46 Million Settlement in Class Action Against Citizens Automobile Finance
The U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California has ordered class notice to be sent out in cases consolidated under the title Citizens Automobile Finance, Rees-Levering Cases, Cases No. C 10-05345 JSW. The Honorable Jeffrey S. White conditionally certified a class of approximately 2,167 California consumers who meet the definition paraphrased as follows: persons who purchased a motor vehicle and as part of that transaction entered into an agreement subject to California's Rees-Levering Automobile Financing Act, whose contract was assigned to Citizens, whose vehicle was repossessed or voluntarily surrendered, who were issued an NOI by Citizens from May 20, 2005 to June 30, 2011, and whose account was assessed a deficiency balance.
This consumer class action challenges the post-repossession notices sent by Citizens Automobile Finance, Inc. or RBS Citizens, N.A. Plaintiffs and the class alleged the notices did not comply with the Rees-Levering Act, thereby banning Citizens from collecting any deficiency debt claimed to be owing after the vehicles were sold at auction. The class members will have 100% of the debt extinguished. Citizens will cease all collection activity concerning those accounts. Citizens will contact the three major credit reporting agencies instructing them to delete the trade lines associated with these accounts. The total amount of outstanding deficiencies to be eliminated is about $46,786,977. The evidence in the case showed that Citizens has collected about $1,715,640 from class members. As part of this settlement, Citizens has agreed to refund about 85% of this amount.These sigificant and substantial benefits are automatic, without any claims process.
At the same time, Citizens expressly denies any wrongdoing and denies that its post-repossession notices are defective. Thus, the settlement is a compromise, intended to resolve the matter without the delay of protracted litigation.
In addition to Bryan Kemnitzer and Nancy Barron of the law firm Kemnitzer, Barron & Krieg LLP, the class was represented by Mark Chavez of the law firm Chavez & Gertler LLP, as well as attorneys Michael Lindsey and John Hanson.
Class notice will be mailed out on August 6, 2012. Final approval is scheduled for November and distribution should occur early next year subject to final approval by the court.

Kemnitzer Barron & Krieg is hearing complaints that Honda Civic tires wear out prematurely. According to reports, the rear suspension was improperly designed in the 2006 and 2007 model year Honda Civics, so that when the vehicle is weighted down the tires end up curving inward, rather than remaining level as they should. This inward curve may cause the tires to wear out far more quickly then they should, as pressure is applied to the tires at an improper angle. In 2008 Honda issued a bulletin to its authorized Honda dealerships regarding this problem. The bulletin allowed dealers to replace the badly designed suspension part at Honda’s cost, and grant buyers a credit toward a new set of tires, the amount of which depended on the amount of use the tires received. However, thousands of Civic owners had already replaced these tires at their own cost and paid for alignments that they did not need, but mechanics had recommended. The unneeded service was recommended because the mechanics did not know the real cause of the premature tire wear. If you are a Civic owner who had to replace your tires early at your own cost please give us a call. This Honda Civic tire problem proves the importance of the phrase “where the rubber meets the road,” both literally and figuratively. Literally in the sense that the improper location where the rubber of the tires contacts the road has resulted in serious problems, and figuratively, because in this moment of truth thousands of 2006 and 2007 Civic owners will likely realize they have spent thousands of dollars because of a manufacturer defect.
The National Consumer Law Center just launched a new website. Check it out
With summer just around the corner and masses of Californians – especially students – on the move, many car owners find they need long term storage for a car or truck. If you are in this category, think it through. Will storage costs of an old car exceed depreciation over the rental term? It might be best just to sell the car now, and buy another used car when you return. Do not expect to be able to just park it on the street. Whether you are in the city or suburbs, most communities have a local ordinance limiting parking to 24-72 hours or by permit only. The best thing, of course, is to find a friend with an empty carport or a three-car garage. Good luck with that! More commonly, you may have to find long-term vehicle storage for a price. The E-How website has some good advice for storing vehicles, including the selection of a dry facility, adding a fuel-stabilizing additive to the gas tank, jacking the body up to relieve weight on tires, washing and covering the car. Further details can be read
There was no suppression switch. Why? Because there were no airbags! Somehow, the manufacturer had engineered the vehicle in just such a way that the airbag did not fit on the passenger side. Oooops. The manufacturer (in that case GM) later argued that it “forgot” to tell the buyers they had left the airbags out. The vehicle could not be modified to add the airbags later. We filed a class action and, in the end, the owners of thousands of vehicles were entitled to rescind and return their trucks.
A midnight visit from the repo man is one of those things no one ever thinks could happen "to me." Yet, in 2009 alone nearly 2 million vehicles were repossessed. That's 2,000,000 cars and trucks! While some people got themselves into cars they just couldn't afford, many other people may have missed a single payment or been told by the lender not to worry while a late check was in the mail. Based on what our clients tell us, lenders and debt collectors are increasingly aggressive.
Ever wonder why foreign dictators are so often depicted in black Mercedes Benz sedans? The answer might lie buried in court documents filed by the U.S. Justice Department today. The result of several years of criminal investigation, this case charges Daimler A.G. and three of its subsidiaries with violating the Foreign Corrupt Practices Act, which prohibits bribing officials of other countries. Among the 22 countries involved are Russia, Iraq, Latvia, Vietnam, China, Nigeria, Serbia, Croatia, Montenegro, Thailand, Turkmenistan, Uzbekistan, and Ivory Coast. It is not hard to imagine a veritable rogues' gallery of officials from these and other governments on the receiving end of the fleet. If Daimler's payment of the $185 million settlement reported by the 

