Top Class Actions’s website and social media posts use affiliate links. If you make a purchase using such links, we may receive a commission, but it will not result in any additional charges to you. Please review our Affiliate Link Disclosure for more information.
Porsche Cars North America Inc. and class representatives for a class action lawsuit alleging that the automaker hid defects in the cooling tubes of some of its cars are both defending a $36.6 million settlement, which is being challenged by an class member, who is also an attorney, who claims is it is both unfair and was decided based on attorney collusion.
Briefs were filed with the Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals by both Porsche and the class representatives, in which they ask that that appeal be denied. They contend that the arguments made by Porsche Cayenne owner and former attorney Mary Ellen Kalange, who says that the settlement is unfair, are “meritless in their own right” and because “new issues raised by Kalange have been waived.”
“Ms. Kalange’s appeal, while couched as an effort to protect the class and the integrity of the judicial system, is the antithetical to the purpose objections are meant to serve,” the class representatives for the Porsche class action lawsuit state.
“Rather than protecting the class, Ms. Kalange wants individual relief tailored to her personal experience, and in pursuing it, she has unjustly delayed the administration of a settlement under which more than 8,900 class members have sought relief,” they add.
Kalange filed her appeal in April 2014 and she alleges that the court and the attorneys representing the parties are in collusion. In addition, she also alleges that an improper notice was sent to class members, that there was an improper release of Porsche, and misconduct on the part of the Ohio federal court overseeing the class action lawsuit.
Porsche has argued that since Kalange did not mention these issues to the federal court, she has waved them on appeal. In addition, the company says that there is no evidence to back her claims.
“Ms. Kalange’s appeal — which is somewhat eccentric, goes far beyond the scope of her original objection, and raises issues she explicitly waived below — is meritless and should be rejected so the settlement, a fair compromise of disputed claims, can go forward,” the class representatives said about the appeal of the Porsche class action lawsuit.
The class action settlement was reached in July 2013, when Porsche said it would agree to pay up to $45 million to cover the costs of the coolant pipe repairs.
The automaker also says that terms of the Porsche class action settlement agreement are fair, explaining that class members will be reimbursed anywhere from $100 to $1,800 for the cost of repairing the defective coolant pipes.
The Ohio federal court approved a nationwide class of Porsche Cayennes with V8 engines made between Jan. 28, 2002 and Dec. 5, 2006 for model years 2003 to 2006.
The original eight Porsche Cayenne class action lawsuits, which were filed across seven states, alleged that the automaker knew about the defect but kept this information from Cayenne owners. The defect allegedly resulted in damage to the vehicles.
Porsche fought the class action lawsuit on the grounds that the alleged defect was reported after warranties expired.
The class action lawsuits were consolidated into a multidistrict litigation, or MDL, in January 2011.
Kalange is representing herself.
The class is represented by Mark D. Landes, Gregory M. Tavalio and Mark Hayden Troutman of Isaac Wiles Burkholder & Teetor LLC and by Gary Klein of Klein Kavanagh Costello LLP.
Porsche Cars North America is represented by William F. Kiniry, Jr. and Matthew Aaron Goldberg of DLA Piper and by Terrance Michael Miller of Porter Wright Morris & Arthur LLP.
The Porsche Coolant Pipe Defect Class Action Lawsuit MDL is In re: Porsche Cars North America Inc. Plastic Coolant Tubes Product Liability Litigation, Case No. 14-3421, in the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit.
