I've captured the names/addresses of all the people you'd have to send the letter to, you'll of course need to edit and send out the five letters.

Objecting doesn't remove you from the class. In fact you have to remain a class member in order to object. So virtually nothing to lose in writing to the court and counsel.

Obviously if a number of letters show up that are substantially similar, the court will assume a letter campaign is underway. You must customize the letter to your situation. It carries more power that way.

My main points:

1. 6 years is not a substantial benefit (line 2 page 7 of the Agreement of Settlement)

2. repaired or replaced instrument clusters need a new 6 year warranty (the AoS ties all timeframes to the vehicle in service date)

3. the instrument cluster is vital to the safety of vehicle occupants

4. without the instrument cluster performing reliably, vehicles will not pass emissions tests performed in many locales.

Have fun!

-bob

--------------------

Clerk of the Court for the United States District Court
Northern District of California
450 Golden Gate Avenue
16th Floor
San Francisco, CA 94102
Audi TT Instrument Cluster Settlement Administrator
PO Box 127
Windsor, CT 06095

Class Counsel--Charles D. Marshall
Green Welling LLP
595 Market St.
Suite 2750
San Francisco, CA 94105

Defense Counsel--S. Mark Varney
Carroll, Burdick & McDonough LLP
44 Montgomery Street
Suite 400
San Francisco, CA 94104

Defense Counsel--Daniel V. Gsovski
Herzfeld & Rubin, P.C.
40 Wall Street
New York, NY 10005-2349

Subject: Objection to Settlement of Maher v. Volkswagen of America, Inc. et al., Case No. C 06 6801 JSW

Dear (Clerk of the Court, Settlement Administrator, Mr. Marshall, Mr. Varney, Mr. Gsovski),

I am formally objecting to the settlement as currently described in the mailing I received from the Settlement Administrator.

Information requested includes name, address and telephone number; vehicle acquisition date and VIN. These are provided herewith:

Robert J. Kunz
Any Street
Any Town, Any State
(111) 123-4567

Vehicle purchased new on August 2, 2002
VIN: (all 17 characters)

I have reviewed the Settlement Class definition and believe that I am a Settlement Class Member. I have not filed for nor do I intend to file for an exclusion from the Settlement Class. I will not be able to attend the fairness hearing on May 23, 2008.

My reason for objecting is that I do not believe that the settlement can be considered fair. This settlement only extends the warranty on the instrument cluster for another two years beyond the complete vehicle warranty of four years. This seems to be designed to exclude via time most of the vehicles that have or will have an instrument cluster failure.

As a member of local and national auto clubs including the Audi Club of North America, I have opportunity to compare data among many of my fellow enthusiasts. I have noted through postings, personal contact and e-mail that my vehicle fits with the vast majority of my fellow TT owners. My vehicle had its instrument cluster replaced under the new car warranty on August, 10, 2003. It failed in two of the modes many enthusiasts have described, namely the driver information display becoming unreadable and the tachometer indicating 0 RPM while the engine is running. Peterson Audi of Boise replaced the instrument cluster after observing these failure modes. My story is replicated numerous times among fellow Audi TT owners. Although it cannot be stated with certainty for all owners of Audi TTs, the number of instrument cluster failures as reported by AudiWorld forum members is very close to 100%. It is a rare event to have an AudiWorld forum member claim to have not had an instrument cluster failure. Many report multiple failures.

A car such as the Audi TT, which is a premium branded car should have an extensive warranty for these kinds of defects in materials and workmanship. Clearly, Audi has figured out how to produce instrument clusters that do not fail. Although Audi does not admit any fault, they clearly had a manufacturing problem with early production run instrument clusters.

I would propose that the court entertain modifications to the remedy. Namely:

1) The period of warranty for original instrument cluster failures is extended to 10 (ten) years from the date the vehicle was put into service

This covers the latent failures sure to occur as the instrument clusters continue to age. This extension of the new vehicle warranty can actually be considered a substantial benefit as opposed to the minor enhancement proposed in the Settlement Agreement.

2) A warranty of six years is established for repaired/replaced instrument clusters independent of vehicle age.

Since the instrument cluster is the point of failure, it makes sense to use the instrument cluster age since repair/replacement as opposed to the age of the vehicle it was placed in. This prevents the installation of known faulty instrument clusters or poorly performed repairs. The Settlement Agreement does not specify newly manufactured instrument clusters be used thereby allowing the use of substandard "remanufactured" instrument clusters or repairs done without regard to quality controls. There would be definite risks to vehicle owners of getting an instrument cluster that is worse than the one being replaced.


I am also concerned about safety for the vehicle occupants. As you can surmise the instrument cluster provides valuable driver information particularly through the driver information display in the center of the instrument cluster. This driver information display informs the driver of critical operational deficiencies such as:

a) Brake pads worn to the limit (leading to inability to stop the vehicle)
b) Engine oil level too low (leading to complete loss of engine function)
c) Lack of power assist for braking function

In addition, the other information displayed by the instrument cluster shows items such as:

a) Electronic stability program engaged
b) Fuel level (many have run out of fuel due to this particular gauge failure)
c) Road speed
d) Etc.

Also of note is that a failed instrument cluster may not be able to display the "MIL" lamp also known as "Service Engine" or "CEL" lamp. This capability is vital to assuring that all emissions tests conducted by the car, the readiness code, pass. In my home state of Idaho, unless the emissions test technician observes the "MIL" lamp in operation, the car will not pass emissions inspection. I would expect that the court would consider this failure mode of utmost concern.

I have also read the original case and am frankly quite surprised that the Representative Plaintiff and Class Counsel have given up so much to the Defendant in the Settlement Agreement. Defendant was particularly careful in limiting the Settlement Class members' remedy by limiting the time to six years from the date the vehicle is put into service. As an example of the absurdity of this stipulation, suppose an instrument cluster fails within one month of the 6 year anniversary. If that repaired/replaced instrument cluster fails two months later, the vehicle owner has no remedy left. Hence my argument for a new six year warranty from the time the instrument cluster is repaired/replaced.

I hope the court instructs counsel to propose a new Settlement Agreement taking into consideration these points.

Sincerely,

Robert Kunz

 

Well done.

 

very nice!! will cut & paste that one TODAY. =)