B0133 NO BATT CAPACITY WARRANTY

[TomT]

Maybe the other manufacturers will and maybe they won't but one salient point is that, unlike Nissan, they haven't (yet) done it to me!

I'm not defending Nissan. I'm not saying what they did is ethical. What I am saying to those who say "I'm done with Nissan and taking my money to someone else", what makes you think that the other manufacturers, facing a similar situation, will not do something similar or worse?

 

[pchilds]

I see this as a win. I sue Nissan in small claims and either get the capacity warranty back or $10,000. If the first, I get a new battery, if the second, I buy a battery from a wrecked LEAF and pocket $5,000 for the next battery.

 

[jhm614]

Maybe the other manufacturers will and maybe they won't but one salient point is that, unlike Nissan, they haven't (yet) done it to me!

I'm not defending Nissan. I'm not saying what they did is ethical. What I am saying to those who say "I'm done with Nissan and taking my money to someone else", what makes you think that the other manufacturers, facing a similar situation, will not do something similar or worse?

Do we know how many people actually opted out? And of those those how many would actually be able to use the warranty? It seems like I saw these numbers somewhere but I can't find them now...

 

[oakwcj]

I just had an interesting conversation with a representative from Capstone, the law firm handing the case against Nissan. A lot of the confusion, he explained, is that most of us don't know the whole timeline of the case. The settlement was actually reached in September 2012. In December 2012, he says that Nissan announced that due to the suit they would be issuing a revised/new capacity warranty. It took them 6 months, but they finally mailed out the new EV Battery Capacity Warranty in June 2013. Although the letter doesn't mention it at all, the warranty was directly tied to the settlement reached in the class action suit. (We were *supposed* to know this because of the December letter/notice). The court ordered the notices to go out to all Leaf owners in July/August 2013. To many of us, who know nothing of class action suits, it appeared that the suit was just beginning, or at least a settlement was about to be reached, but that was not at all the case. The case was already settled, and we just had to decide if we wanted to stay as part of the class.
My misunderstanding was mostly due to some "bad verbiage", as he put it, that said the warranty from the settlement was "the same" as the one Nissan mailed me. I took "the same" as meaning "equal to, or equivalent", but in this case what they meant to say was that the warranty you would receive from the settlement WAS IN FACT the new Nissan EV Battery Capacity Warranty. :shock: So, by opting out, I was rejecting the new warranty, and keeping my options open for a future lawsuit. That was certainly never the case, as I was happy with the new warranty, so I had no desire to sue them, and I was looking forward to a fresh start with Nissan next year when I lose my 4th bar and get a new battery.
I do still have one glimmer of hope, although the opt-out/opt-in process is closed: he offered to write to Nissan and explain my misunderstanding. He said that if both parties agree to it, they may allow me to opt back in.
I'll keep you posted if I hear anything.

What the Capstone "representative" told you may be "interesting," but it's also total B.S. Andy Palmer was discussing extending the battery warranty with the advisory group in the fall of 2012. It was announced in December 2012 without any reference to the Klee suit. Palmer was asked in December 2012, about the status of the case and said that it had been settled. He made no attempt to tie the settlement to the battery capacity warranty. Nissan implemented the warranty in June 2013, without any settlement approval, and without even mentioning the existence of a lawsuit. There is still no approved settlement. However, there was a powerful objection to the settlement from Alex Kozinski which argued that the settlement was a sham because it provided LEAF owners with zilch, inasmuch as the warranty had already been implemented. The strength of this argument caused Nissan's lawyers to state at the settlement approval hearing that Nissan would withdraw the warranty from those who opted out. This alarmed Kozinski, who certainly didn't want to harm those who opted out. He then filed a supplemental brief arguing that Nissan had no legal basis to withdraw the warranty from those who opted out. The Nissan lawyers did imply that Nissan would let the "opt-outers" to opt back in if the settlement was ultimately approved. Of course, the Capstone "representative" is going to claim that it won the day on the warranty, which was already in process when the lawsuit was filed. But remember that the supposed bad "verbiage" was written by Capstone and Nissan. They could have written the settlement notice in an unambiguous manner, but that's not what Nissan wanted. Nissan wanted to have its cake and eat it too. It wanted to take credit for responding to consumer complaints out of its own good-heartedness, and not because it had a toy gun to its head. At the same time, it wanted to extinguish everyone's right to sue over battery degradation issues for a trivial amount of money. Kozinski's objection put Nissan in a box. They're not really interested in screwing a few people who opted-out of the settlement agreement, but for tactical legal reasons that's what they've had to pretend to do. If the settlement is never approved, Nissan isn't going to withdraw the capacity warranty. If it is approved, it will allow the opt-outers to opt back in. Everything you're seeing now is just Kabuki Theater for the settlement judge.

I posted a link to Kozinski's objection in the other thread. Many of you read it at the time. Here it is again:

https://www.dropbox.com/s/ks02n77tksftzse/Klee Objection.pdf

You only need to read the first 14 pages.

 

[GRA]

I posted a link to Kozinski's objection in the other thread. Many of you read it at the time. Here it is again:

https://www.dropbox.com/s/ks02n77tksftzse/Klee Objection.pdf

You only need to read the first 14 pages.

Thanks for that. It's Nissan and Capstone in the car:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hjNY4o_i5RY" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

 

[mwalsh]

What the Capstone "representative" told you may be "interesting," but it's also total B.S. Andy Palmer was discussing extending the battery warranty with the advisory group in the fall of 2012. It was announced in December 2012 without any reference to the Klee suit. Palmer was asked in December 2012, about the status of the case and said that it had been settled. He made no attempt to tie the settlement to the battery capacity warranty. Nissan implemented the warranty in June 2013, without any settlement approval, and without even mentioning the existence of a lawsuit. There is still no approved settlement. However, there was a powerful objection to the settlement from Alex Kozinski which argued that the settlement was a sham because it provided LEAF owners with zilch, inasmuch as the warranty had already been implemented. The strength of this argument caused Nissan's lawyers to state at the settlement approval hearing that Nissan would withdraw the warranty from those who opted out. This alarmed Kozinski, who certainly didn't want to harm those who opted out. He then filed a supplemental brief arguing that Nissan had no legal basis to withdraw the warranty from those who opted out. The Nissan lawyers did imply that Nissan would let the "opt-outers" to opt back in if the settlement was ultimately approved. Of course, the Capstone "representative" is going to claim that it won the day on the warranty, which was already in process when the lawsuit was filed. But remember that the supposed bad "verbiage" was written by Capstone and Nissan. They could have written the settlement notice in an unambiguous manner, but that's not what Nissan wanted. Nissan wanted to have its cake and eat it too. It wanted to take credit for responding to consumer complaints out of its own good-heartedness, and not because it had a toy gun to its head. At the same time, it wanted to extinguish everyone's right to sue over battery degradation issues for a trivial amount of money. Kozinski's objection put Nissan in a box. They're not really interested in screwing a few people who opted-out of the settlement agreement, but for tactical legal reasons that's what they've had to pretend to do. If the settlement is never approved, Nissan isn't going to withdraw the capacity warranty. If it is approved, it will allow the opt-outers to opt back in. Everything you're seeing now is just Kabuki Theater for the settlement judge.

I posted a link to Kozinski's objection in the other thread. Many of you read it at the time. Here it is again:

https://www.dropbox.com/s/ks02n77tksftzse/Klee Objection.pdf

You only need to read the first 14 pages.

I, for one, am very glad to have your insights when it comes this matter, and thank you for them. It's nice to have someone who fully understands the legal basis of what's being bandied around.

 

[Stoaty]

Everything you're seeing now is just Kabuki Theater for the settlement judge.

They are going pretty far with the acting by using props (the B0133 exclusion) outside the "theater" in the real world. Guess they want the judge to think it is real.

 

[QueenBee]

I posted a link to Kozinski's objection in the other thread. Many of you read it at the time. Here it is again:

https://www.dropbox.com/s/ks02n77tksftzse/Klee Objection.pdf

You only need to read the first 14 pages.

Wow, I only got through try first few pages and would really like to give them a high five. Thanks for your explanation which makes complete sense. Hopefully my opting out was beneficial to this cause as for me it was purely a gesture towards those with serious capacity issues. Thanks for relinking to this. Hopefully this puts those who are concerned about needing the capacity warrsnty at ease for a bit.

 

[keydiver]

Do we know how many people actually opted out?

According to Capstone, the number of Leaf owners who opted out was actually very small, but he couldn't recall the exact number. I'm sure they do know the exact number though.

 

[QueenBee]

All those playing lawyer in this thread really need to read the objection letter. I have no idea where he got his law degree (or if he had an attorney draft it) but it clearly lays out what I was attempting to and debunks all the BS in this thread. If this wasn't written by a lawyer then he sure plays one well. I'd suggest you all stop spewing your BS until you've read it and then feel free to refute his claims. After reading it you may want to edit your posts as you sound pretty ignorant to how the legal system, contracts, and settlements in contrast to this person.

 

[QueenBee]

This letter makes me want to file a small claims case against Nissan. He's laid out the entire case and I would say my damages are the diminished value as result or being excluded. Though I am not sure if goodwill is considered consideration with regards to if a contract. I feel like it has to be but am not positive.

 

[QueenBee]

All those playing lawyer in this thread really need to read the objection letter. I have no idea where he got his law degree (or if he had an attorney draft it) but it clearly lays out what I was attempting to and debunks all the BS in this thread. If this wasn't written by a lawyer then he sure plays one well. I'd suggest you all stop spewing your BS until you've read it and then feel free to refute his claims. After reading it you may want to edit your posts as you sound pretty ignorant to how the legal system, contracts, and settlements in contrast to this person.

It may have been mentioned elsewhere but I presume,e the objection is from this Alex, a judge...

http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alex_Kozinski" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Nice write up about this: http://blogs.reuters.com/alison-frankel/2013/11/20/lawyers-nightmare-when-9th-circuit-chief-judge-kozinski-is-class-objector/" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

 

[oakwcj]

All those playing lawyer in this thread really need to read the objection letter. I have no idea where he got his law degree (or if he had an attorney draft it) but it clearly lays out what I was attempting to and debunks all the BS in this thread. If this wasn't written by a lawyer then he sure plays one well. I'd suggest you all stop spewing your BS until you've read it and then feel free to refute his claims. After reading it you may want to edit your posts as you sound pretty ignorant to how the legal system, contracts, and settlements in contrast to this person.

It may have been mentioned elsewhere but I presume,e the objection is from this Alex, a judge...

http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alex_Kozinski" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Nice write up about this: http://blogs.reuters.com/alison-frankel/2013/11/20/lawyers-nightmare-when-9th-circuit-chief-judge-kozinski-is-class-objector/" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

The other thread on this subject goes into Chief Judge Kozinski's place in the legal world. Neither Capstone nor Nissan could have expected to get an objection from such an unlikely source.

I believe that the total number who opted out was in the range of 50-60. A significant percentage of those were owners like Stoaty and me who will not lose four bars within 5 years/ 60,000 miles, so cost is not a factor for Nissan. My car is 37 months old, with 20,000 miles and still has all its capacity bars. I opted out because I was offended by the sham nature of the settlement.

 

[pchilds]

I opted out; because, the suit gave me nothing that, I didn't already have. Why should these hacks get $2 million for nothing. Those that didn't opt out, it is your fault, that this case wasn't tossed out of court, as it should have been.

 

[TomT]

+1

I also strongly suspected that my car would become a 4BL about when I turned it in at the end of the four year lease when it would have 60K miles anyway...

I opted out because I was offended by the sham nature of the settlement.

 

[keydiver]

The other thread on this subject goes into Chief Judge Kozinski's place in the legal world. Neither Capstone nor Nissan could have expected to get an objection from such an unlikely source.

I believe the Capstone lawyer mentioned that the meeting to discuss the objectors is next week. So, its not over yet.
Its a shame no one can get a message to Judge Kozinski that exactly what he feared would happen is already happening. The new EV battery capacity warranty IS being tied to the class action suit, even though there is no mention of that in Nissan's letter.

 

[TimLee]

I just had an interesting conversation with a representative from Capstone, the law firm handing the case against Nissan. ...

I believe the Capstone lawyer mentioned that the meeting to discuss the objectors is next week. So, its not over yet.

Thank you for sharing the information.
Sad to see that the law firm still appears to be incompetent.
Did you ask for an apology for their incompetence :?:
Nissan has been bad but the law firm really takes the cake :|

Hope that all Opt Outers are allowed to Opt In.
But being in south Florida you will definitely need the capacity warranty unless you drive very few miles.

I'm border line on whether I'll qualify. Probably less than 20% chance. At 37 months and 21,000 miles I have lost one bar but data indicates second will disappear shortly. Another driver with 37,000 miles has lost two bars.

Que Será, Será

 

[oakwcj]

The other thread on this subject goes into Chief Judge Kozinski's place in the legal world. Neither Capstone nor Nissan could have expected to get an objection from such an unlikely source.

I believe the Capstone lawyer mentioned that the meeting to discuss the objectors is next week. So, its not over yet.
Its a shame no one can get a message to Judge Kozinski that exactly what he feared would happen is already happening. The new EV battery capacity warranty IS being tied to the class action suit, even though there is no mention of that in Nissan's letter.

I can assure you that he knows what Nissan is doing. And, while mediation is a common settlement technique in ordinary litigation, I have never heard of mediation being used in the context of a class action settlement fairness hearing. I'm sure that Kozinski doesn't want to be even partly responsible for those who opted out losing the battery capacity warranty. If there is a negotiated resolution to this, it will certainly take care of that issue.

 

[dgpcolorado]

...I believe that the total number who opted out was in the range of 50-60. A significant percentage of those were owners like Stoaty and me who will not lose four bars within 5 years/ 60,000 miles, so cost is not a factor for Nissan. My car is 37 months old, with 20,000 miles and still has all its capacity bars. I opted out because I was offended by the sham nature of the settlement.

As did I. It is also moot for me since I will not be down four bars by 60 months.

 

[pchilds]

I believe that the total number who opted out was in the range of 50-60. A significant percentage of those were owners like Stoaty and me who will not lose four bars within 5 years/ 60,000 miles, so cost is not a factor for Nissan. My car is 37 months old, with 20,000 miles and still has all its capacity bars. I opted out because I was offended by the sham nature of the settlement.

62 MNL members voted in the poll, that they opted out of the suit. I find it very improbable, that MNL represents 100% of all the people, that opted out of the suit.

http://www.mynissanleaf.com/viewtopic.php?f=27&t=14378
Edited to add link to poll and correct opted out numbers.