Santiago v. Kia Motors
Eight state court class actions were filed against Kia Motors based on an allegedly defective front braking system in its 1997 through 2000 Sephia models: California, Pennsylvania, New Jersey, Tennessee, North Carolina, Florida, Illinois and Alabama. Additionally, a federal court class action was filed in Florida. The law firm of Lieff, Cabraser, Heimann & Berstein, hereinafter Lieff & Cabraser, is counsel of record for the putative class only in the federal Florida action.
A 47 state settlement not including Florida was tentatively reached in this California action, Maria Santiago et al. v. Kia Motors (Super Ct. Orange County, 2005. No. 01CC01438) in May 2005. (Pennsylvania and New Jersey were also not part of the settlement.[1]) The proposed settlement provided a potential payout of $8 million to the 47-state class, with payments to each consumer capped at $275. In June 2005, counsel from the state actions in Illinois, Tennessee, and North Carolina, plus Lieff & Cabraser, filed objections to the proposed settlement.
Over the course of the next few months the proposed settlement was modified: The overall cap was increased to $14 million with a $600 maximum payout per consumer, and Kia undertook the costs of administration. On the attorney fee issue, Kia agreed to provide $2.1 million in attorneys fees, exclusive of the $14 million total liability already included in the enhanced settlement, to counsel on the Illinois, Tennessee, North Carolina, and California cases, i.e., to counsel representing plaintiffs within the 47-state area covered by the settlement. However, Kia did not want to fund any fees for Lieff & Cabraser. The notice of the settlement provided to consumers alerted them to the fact that Lieff & Cabraser were seeking up to another $500,000, but there was no fund established by Kia from which any fee claim by Lieff & Cabraser might be paid.
Lieff & Cabrasers claim for attorney fees was heard in late January 2006, with the counsel on the Illinois, Tennessee, North Carolina, and California cases weighing in on their side. Lieff & Cabraser was with them shoulder to shoulder all the way.[3] A mainstay of the argument was that Lieff & Cabraser could have supported an inferior settlement in the federal Florida action, but supported Californias jurisdiction in order to obtain a better settlement for the class.
Although the court did not include any written justification for its order, it denied Lieff & Cabrasers application for fees and costs in its entirety.
Lieff & Cabraser then filed this appeal from the order of denial. Kia has filed a motion to dismiss the appeal arguing Lieff & Cabraser lacks standing to appeal. Court note that the firm has filed with this court a certificate of interested entities or persons and includes the names of five non party class members as their clients, as well as non party law firms (apparently co counsel in Florida).
The appeal brought by Lieff & Cabraser is dismissed.
Comments on Santiago v. Kia Motors