TURNER V GE Refrigerator Class Action

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT MIDDLE DISTRICT OF FLORIDA FORT MYERS DIVISION CASE NO.
: 2:05-CV-186-FtM-29DNF
____________________________________________________________ WILLIAM F. TURNER, et al Plaintiffs, vs. Fort Myers, Florida August 21, 2006 1:32 p.m. GENERAL ELECTRIC COMPANY, Defendant. ____________________________________________________________
TRANSCRIPT OF CONTINUATION OF FAIRNESS HEARING The above-entitled cause was called for hearing before the Honorable John E. Steele, United States District Court Judge, sitting at the United States Courthouse in the City of Fort Myers, Florida, beginning at the hour of 1:32 o'clock, p.m., on the 21st day of August, 2006.
- - -
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 FOR DEFENDANT: 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 REPORTED BY: 23 24 25 FOR PLAINTIFFS:
A P P E A R A N C E S
Weinstein, Bavly & Moon, P.A. Suite 303 2400 First Street Fort Myers, FL 33901 (239) 334-8844 BY: SCOTT W. WEINSTEIN, ESQ. BY: JORDAN LUCAS CHAIKIN, ESQ. The Mason Law Firm, P.C. 1225 19th Street, N.W. Suite 500 Washington, DC 20036 BY: GARY E. MASON, ESQ. BY: ALEXANDER E. BARNETT, ESQ.
Fowler, White, Boggs & Banker, P.A. 501 East Kennedy Boulevard Suite 1700 Tampa, FL 33601 (813) 222-1137 BY: EDWARD MARTIN WALLER, JR., ESQ. FOR BRENT DAVIS, Objector: Jeffrey L. Weinstein, P.C. 518 East Tyler Street Athens, TX 75751 BY: JEFFREY G. WEINSTEIN, ESQ. BY: MICHAEL F. KAYUSA, ESQ. FOR CATHERINE CANNIVET, Objector: CATHERINE CANNIVET, Pro Se 3995 Upolo Lane Naples, FL 34119 (239) 592-5454 JEFFREY G. THOMAS, RPR-CP Official Federal Court Reporter U.S. Courthouse 2110 First Street, Suite 2-194 Fort Myers, FL 33901 (239) 461-2033
1 I N D E X 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 Argument by Mr. Waller 17 Argument by Mr. Mason 18 Argument by Mr. Scott Weinstein 19 Argument by Mr. Waller 20 Argument by Ms. Cannivet 21 Certificate of Court Reporter 22 23 24 25 1 99 1 96 1 93 1 91 1 88 1 84 August 21, 2006 Preliminary Discussions Argument by Mr. Scott Weinstein Argument by Mr. Waller Argument by Mr. Scott Weinstein Argument by Mr. Jeffrey Weinstein Argument by Ms. Catherine Cannivet Argument by Mr. Scott Weinstein Argument by Mr. Mason Argument by Mr. Jeffrey Weinstein Argument by Mr. Waller Vol. 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 Page 4 5 21 22 23 34 51 59 61 69 79 80
Argument by Mr. Scott Weinstein Mr. Jeffrey Weinstein Questions Mr. Scott Weinstein
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25
THEREUPON, the above-entitled case having been called to order, the following proceedings were held herein, to-wit: - - THE COURT: All right. This is the case of
William H. -- I'm sorry, William F. Turner, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated, versus General Electric Company. It is Case 2:05 civil 186. This is a
continuation of a fairness hearing that was begun on April the 27th, 2006, in front of Judge Covington. a transcript of that hearing. Counsel, if you'd identify yourselves and your respective clients, beginning with counsel for the plaintiff? MR. SCOTT WEINSTEIN: I represent the plaintiff. MR. MASON: Gary Mason for plaintiff. Alexander Barnett for the plaintiff. Jordan Chaikin for the plaintiffs. Ed Waller, from the Fowler White firm And with me is Hal Bogard, My name is Scott Weinstein. I have read
MR. BARNETT: MR. CHAIKIN: MR. WALLER:
in Tampa, representing GE.
senior litigation counsel for GE, from Louisville. THE COURT: All right. Your Honor, Jeff Weinstein
MR. JEFFREY WEINSTEIN: for objector Brent Davis.
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25
MR. KAYUSA: counsel for Mr. Davis. THE COURT:
Your Honor, Michael Kayusa, local
All right.
Thank you, all. We'll
Mr. Weinstein, I think this is your show. start with you. MR. SCOTT WEINSTEIN: Yes, sir.
May I remain at
counsel table, because I have so many items? THE COURT: You may. Thank you.
MR. SCOTT WEINSTEIN:
Again, Your Honor, this is the continuation of the fairness hearing that began on April 27th, we were prepared, we thought, at that time, to finalize a fairness hearing. Early that morning, we spoke with Mr. Bogard and
Mr. Waller, who, at that point, told us that, literally that morning, their data people at GE figured out that there may be a way to find more GE refrigerator owner that were in the database that they had been using. We told the Court that,
and Mr. Bogard explained where that database was. As it turns out, it was a database of people who did not send in their warranty registration card. When you
buy a refrigerator, you fill out a card and send it in for this very purpose. If somebody had sent in that warranty
registration card, then they were in the first group of notices. If somebody had service on their GE refrigerator,
through GE or a GE authorized service person, they were in
ARGUMENT BY MR. SCOTT WEINSTEIN
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25
that original group of individual direct notice.
But GE
figured out that there may be a group of people that bought an extended warranty from Home Depot or an outside agency that they could identity, and they told us that morning, and, of course, we told Judge Covington. bit of business on April 27th. So we did a little
Mr. Turner, who is sitting
here, addressed the Court, and is here again, if necessary, if there's any other questions to answer. Judge Covington made findings, we believe, about the adequacy of the notice. notice. She reviewed the publication
We have the actual magazines that notice was
published in, and she reviewed those, and found them to be, in her own words, more than adequate. about the settlement itself. But we didn't talk
We did not reach the point of
Judge Covington determining whether the settlement was fair, reasonable, and adequate. So, if we may, Your Honor, a brief history of what this case is about? THE COURT: Please. Several years ago, it became
known, first in Naples, Florida, that more than one person in the neighborhood with a similar refrigerator was having a similar problem. And NBC2, the local affiliate, did a story
about that, and they started exposing the fact that many neighbors in the neighborhood were complaining about similar
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25
problems with their GE refrigerators.
And notably,
Miss Cannivet, who I think is sitting back over there, apparently -- and I'm taking this from media accounts because that's how I knew about it -- got the media's attention, and actually, I think, Miss Simmons, from NBC2, did the first report that I saw about it, talking about how similar problems were found in these refrigerators. We
later found out that General Electric had agreed to replace the refrigerators in that particular neighborhood, and most of the neighbors appeared to be happy. But Mr. Turner, who did not live in that neighborhood, he lived in Pelican Bay, had a similar refrigerator, and he a similar problem, and he didn't live in Island Walk, so he didn't get his refrigerator. called me, and we began an investigation. So he
I immediately
co-counseled with Gary Mason and his firm, because of their experience in a somewhat similar case involving a Maytag Neptune washing machine. It was a similar kind of issue,
and they were very successful in the nationwide class action. And I have known Gary for many years. We spent a lot of time getting public information, things that we can find out ourselves, and we filed a rather simple complaint, Florida class only, based on the units that we can figure out, from web sites, appear to have the common problem. And, very soon after, I was contacted by
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25
Mr. Waller, from Fowler White, who told me he was going to represent General Electric, and we began the discovery process. Fortunately, I believe, Mr. Waller recommended, early on, that we meet with himself, and Mr. Bogard, and some other people from General Electric, and we did so very quickly, in Florida, in Tampa; and, soon after, we were invited to Louisville, where the General Electric appliance division is located, where Mr. Bogard, who is chief litigation counsel, I believe, for the appliance division, resides and works; and we entered into a confidentiality agreement that Judge Covington, I think, signed off on. we went to Louisville, and we were surprised at how forthright GE was with us in showing us, really, what the problems were with some of these refrigerators. It gave us And, And
the ability to determine what the scope of that was.
by that, I mean which model numbers were similarly affected. Because we were under a confidentiality order, and still are, I can't talk in specifics about what we learned and what we didn't; but suffice to say that we were able, on two occasions, to expand the class by filing a series of amended complaints to list more and more model numbers, because we started finding this common problem. We went back and regrouped, and figured out how to proceed, and then we went back to Louisville again, because
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25
at that point we had a lot of questions, and we met, again, with counsel, and with people from the engineering side of General Electric, people who make these products. And we
were able to ask them questions, and then we were able to ask for backup documentation about what they were telling us. We received thousands of documents from General Electric, and we also received four CD's, with thousands of documents on them that had to do with histories, complaints, some internal memos about what the problem was, and we figured out what the problem was with this group of refrigerators. We could not determine, although we heard, anecdotally, there were problems with other models, we were sure that we had the right group of models to include in this class. And so we amended the complaint again, and Then we spent several months, as we
included those models.
began the discovery process, also talking about resolving this case. And last December, December of '05, the
negotiations became rather heavy, and heated, I might add, because we suggested a way to resolve this matter, we got together again, and finally reached the settlement agreement that's been filed with this Court. This, Your Honor, is one of the early cases under CAFA the Class Action Fairness Act, so, of course,
10
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25
everything we did complied with CAFA.
And one of the things
that has to be done under CAFA is that all attorneys general, for instance, of the United States, must be given a notice of the settlement. And that was done. Mr. -- and,
by the way, CAFA says that the defendant is responsible for doing that; so Mr. Waller took care of that, and we made sure that he did. We reached what we believe -- and let me . . . . Let me tell you how we got to -- to reaching this agreement. By the time we reached the time of talking about settlement, the media had picked up on this story, and I started receiving hundreds of phone calls, every day, from consumers, telling me that they had this problem, and asking me what to do. And the problem was that I couldn't tell I couldn't tell them not to fix it because I couldn't promise them that, if they And I
them what to do.
they had a problem.
fixed it, themselves, they would ever get reimbursed. had that in my mind as we got toward these settlement negotiations.
So one of the prime issues, when we negotiated this, was I wanted to make sure that, if we settled this case, that we had immediate relief for the -- for the consumer, for the settlement class members as they turned out to be; and we negotiated immediate implementation of the benefits program because I knew that, once we filed this,
11
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25
and it got in the media, and then direct mail notices were sent out, I was going to hear from hundreds, or thousands, or tens of thousands of people, and I needed to be able to tell them what to do. It was somewhat unconventional that there would be an agreement to start providing benefits to a settlement class before today, before the final hearing, because GE didn't know whether we'd ever get to this day, and GE still doesn't know whether Your Honor is going to sign the final order. But it was untenable, from our final standpoint, to
have a long period of time to get to the point where we're at today, where people continued suffering with defective refrigerators, and either had to fix them or replace them. And, so, after lengthy discussions, GE agreed that, from the moment -- if the Court entered the preliminary order approving the settlement, which Judge Covington did, at that moment, this additional warranty protection plan would start, and, at that moment, anybody who is defined in that class, who had what is defined as a moisture related problem -- and it's a broad definition -would have free service up until January 12th of 2007. That way, when those calls start coming to me -- and, Your Honor, believe me, they did, thousands of them, thousands of them a month -- I could tell them what to do. Whether they
had a claim form or not, whether they received notice or
ARGUMENT BY MR. SCOTT WEINSTEIN So, beginning on January 13th of this year, any
12
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25
not.
consumer who is defined in the class definition, who had a moisture related problem, was entitled to free service. This was . . . going way back. And, in fact, Your
Honor, skipping ahead, 61,765 letters, more than 61,000 letters, have been sent out to consumers as of the last date that we knew, last week, advising them, because they had asked for it, that they have additional warranty protection. Again, well before Your Honor has a chance to decide whether this settlement is going to be finally approved. And the other thing that they agreed to do along the way -- let me go through the three levels of benefits under the settlement. Number one, you get that immediate implementation of the additional warranty protection. way back when. I mean right now,
If you've had three repairs, by anybody, by
an independent service person, by GE, as long as it's three, repairs, and you can show that with any kind of evidence, you get a new refrigerator. GE comes and they take your old And it was
one away, and they give you a comparable one.
important to us that that start immediately, so that people don't continue suffering through this process. that. So they did
And through this date, through this hearing, 13,423
refrigerators, new refrigerators, have been installed in class members' homes. More than 13,000. Which by the way,
13
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25
Your Honor, have an average value of more than a thousand dollars each. And, immediately, because I would receive calls, people who really don't have the money to pay for these repairs, and have paid for them, if they could show that they had a moisture related repair before, before this settlement ever happened, and they paid somebody to fix it, they get all of their money back. And, to date, $1,000,893
has been directly reimbursed to consumers who actually had a repair that they paid for, or actually went out of pocket to replace the refrigerator because they didn't want to wait for GE to do something. All of those things happened already, and that's what we negotiated from the beginning, looking forward, because, otherwise, it would have been untenable, and we would have reached today, and more and more people would have had a problem, and they would have been out of pocket. So those were the three elements of the settlement. The notice plan was as follows. has them. And Your Honor
Advertisements were placed in national magazines,
including the two major Sunday morning magazines, U.S.A. Today and . . . what's the other one called? MR. MASON: Parade. Parade. And People's
14
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25
Magazine, and Readers Digest.
Summary notices of this
class, with a toll free number, so that, if people didn't get a direct notice in the mail, they could get a toll free number, and it could be sent to them. address. And, Your Honor, my
And, at the moment that these were published, I
would receive phone calls and letters, and I would help people get claim forms, and tell them how to do them. Hundreds of thousands of them. Also, a web site was set up by GE. We found that,
as of now, that web site has had -- let me see if I have this number. I don't know how many hits. 43,455 hits. On
the special web site.
With an average view of 4.15 minutes.
And, on that web site, consumers are able to read the settlement documents, and download a claim form, and understand -- and also contact me. So all of those things were done before April 27th, when we came here. Judge Covington was impressed with the notice plan and the implementation of the notice. But then that issue
came up, so Judge Covington ordered that all of those people on that supplemental list -- and that's what we called it -had to get a notice. And she approved of a new time And, in fact, we
schedule before we got here, today.
checked, and affidavits have been filed, those notices were sent out. 263,000 notices were sent out since June 6th.
15
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25
In all, Your Honor, 707,490 claim forms have been sent out to date. 707,000. We don't know whether some of I don't know if there is any
those are duplicates or not. way to know.
And, to date, Your Honor, 133,483 calls have 42,000 since June. And
come back to that call center.
64,000 claim forms have been submitted, to date, from consumers. settlement. Only 244 people have opted out of the And, again, 61,000 letters have been sent,
authorizing the additional warranty protection that I spoke of. And I told Your Honor about how much was reimbursed and how many refrigerators have already been replaced. And some consumers have several more weeks to
send in their claim forms under the supplemental notice plan, and they have until January of next year to continue receiving their free service, and to get their new refrigerator if they have a problem. Some of these refrigerators are going on five to six years -- five years old, six years old, as this point. So they're going to have other problems, anyway. They're
starting to get to the point in their life where they are going to start having problems. So that is what's happened to date. Now, we filed an extensive briefing and I don't know what Your Honor wants us to talk about more than
16
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25
anything else.
I must mention that, as of the first
fairness hearing, in April, there were four things that we characterized as objections. objections. I don't know if they were
They were letters that we received, that were
not filed with the Court, but counsel for GE and my side decided, that if they smell like an objection, we're going to treat them like one, and we filed them, even though they didn't comply with the order of the Court. And none of
those objectors showed up at the original fairness hearing. I know that two of those objectors -- and we've got affidavits in the file -- have been satisfied. They
actually got their replacement refrigerators throughout the process. And the other two, their issue was they weren't
happy because they didn't want to wait until they had three repairs, they wanted a new refrigerator now. And they know
that they're eligible to get a new refrigerator if they have three problems. I don't believe any of those people are
here, and I don't think that they really were objections anyway. Now, since that time, there was one objection filed before the new deadline. Because Judge Covington said
that she wants the supplemental notices to go out, and the then those people should have a longer time to file their objections. Anybody who was in the original group does not.
And Mr. Weinstein has filed an objection on behalf of
ARGUMENT BY MR. SCOTT WEINSTEIN We got it at the 11th hour, but we got it on
17
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25
Mr. Davis.
time, and I'm prepared to talk about that. Well after the deadline, Your Honor, Miss Cannivet filed two documents. The first was called an objection, and
the second one was referred to as the declarations portion of it, although I don't believe the declaration portion complies with the definition of a declaration. It's a
25-page document that has a lot of issues in it. Your Honor, since you indicated that you read the transcript of the first hearing, Miss Cannivet appeared at that hearing. She said she was not objecting. She said
that she received the original notice and claim form, which means she's in the original group. She did not file an She said she was And then
objection before the original deadline.
not an objector, just wanted to address the Court.
she filed this objection after the supplemental objection date. She appears to have followed the format that Mr. Weinstein used. It looks clear that she saw
Mr. Weinstein's objection, and used the physical format of it. And then the 25-page document came, I believe, on And so we apologize for our late response to it.
Thursday.
We scrambled . . . in great surprise, from what we saw, to provide Your Honor with a response before the weekend, knowing that Your Honor wanted to read it over the weekend,
18
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25
before this hearing.
And I am prepared, Your Honor, to
respond to both of those objections, if I may. THE COURT: Well, let me hear from the objectors,
first, before I hear your response. MR. SCOTT WEINSTEIN: Okay.
Our first issue, though, in response to Miss Cannivet, is, one, she didn't even object, the first time, at her deadline. Even if she were in the second
group, which she's not, she filed her objection well after the deadline. With pro s litigants, you know, I usually
think that deadlines shouldn't be strictly adhered to; but Judge Covington sure spent a lot of time explaining to Miss Cannivet that the Court has ruled and how you have to do things. The objection is not well taken, Your Honor. I don't believe it's We
filed an extensive reply to it. timely, at all. THE COURT:
In the back of my mind, it seems to me
I remember the discussion as to whether she was a member of the class in the first place. MR. SCOTT WEINSTEIN: THE COURT: Yes.
I thought the answer was no. I said I don't believe that
MR. SCOTT WEINSTEIN: she is.
And I still don't know if she is, but I've spoken
to her since that day, because she asked me about my opinion. Here is what I said at that hearing, and I may
19
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25
have been wrong. I said she was in the Island Walk group, and I don't know if she had one of the affected units -- I still don't know -- but GE replaced all the refrigerators at Island Walk well before we filed our lawsuit; and Miss Cannivet told me, and I think it's a matter of record, that she got a new refrigerator. refrigerator. standing. And I think I did say I don't believe she's a member of the class, and I still don't know if she is. She She got a replacement
So what I said is I don't believe she has
would be a member of the class if she ever owned one of the affected units, and therefore I would be wrong, even though it was replaced, although she wouldn't have standing because she was unharmed. THE COURT: So she would be a member of the class,
but she would have no relief coming? MR. SCOTT WEINSTEIN: Exactly.
And she's raising issues about fraud, and RICO, and all of these other things. That's not part of this
case, can't be a part of this class action, and she would have had, at that point an opt out right, because this class includes opt out rights. If she had a personal injury claim, because she's mentioned personal injury claims in her objection, that's
20
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25
also not released by this.
If anybody swallowed an errant
piece of plastic or metal, that's not released by this case. If anybody was sick because of bad food, because the refrigerator was warm, that's also a personal injury case, that's not included. So she got a new refrigerator. She doesn't
have -- she doesn't have the damages that she would need to have to get some relief. She doesn't have a refrigerator She's not
that requires additional warranty protection. entitled to a replacement unit.
So I don't believe she has But I think
standing, because she doesn't have any damages. I might be getting ahead of myself. THE COURT: even hear from her? MR. SCOTT WEINSTEIN:
Well, what's the Court's obligation to
If she's a member of the I think the Court has
class, she's a member of the class.
an obligation to listen to timely objectors. THE COURT: class? MR. SCOTT WEINSTEIN: it. I think she'd have to prove How do I know she's a member of the
The settlement documents say that you have to provide
some sort of proof -- an invoice, or some sort of proof -that you own, or owned, since, I think, 2001, one of these units. THE COURT: So, if she had ever owned one of the
21
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25
units since 2001, even if it got replaced, after that, your view would be she's a member of the class. MR. SCOTT WEINSTEIN: If she ever owned it since
2001, she's a member of the class, because that's what the definition said. Anybody who owned, or owns, since 2001, She would
one of these models, is a member of the class. be.
Although none of the relief applies to her. THE COURT: So she could be a member of the class,
and conceivably could object, but couldn't get anything from the class. MR. SCOTT WEINSTEIN: THE COURT: That's my view, Your Honor.
All right.
Let's hear from the defendant, first, and then hear from the objectors. objector. MR. WALLER: Your Honor, I don't think we have Just a couple of little Counsel, and then the pro s
very much to add at this point. points.
Mr. Weinstein did mention that the attorneys general, nationwide, were notified of this. And we did send
out 50 notices to attorneys general, and a 51st to the U.S. Attorney General in Washington. And we have gotten no
objections from, or motions to intervene, from any of those. We did get an inquiry, from the Vermont Attorney General, questions about notice plan, and they wanted copies of the
ARGUMENT BY MR. WALLER
22
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25
ads that were published.
We sent that information, you
know, up to them, and have not heard back from them. Another point I would make is the Florida Attorney General, when we were doing the negotiations, both Mr. Weinstein's office and our office provided extensive information to the Attorney General for the State of Florida; and, again, there's been no -- no intervention, or no objection from any of them. point, Your Honor. MR. SCOTT WEINSTEIN: And may go out of order and First of all, my name I just want to make that
respond to something Mr. Waller says.
is Mr. Weinstein, and the only reason I mention it is because Mr. Weinstein from Texas is Weinstine (phonetic). THE COURT: that. I was going to ask you two guys about
Looks like you spell it the same way. MR. JEFFREY WEINSTEIN: THE COURT: We'll work that out later.
Some people can't agree to anything. With respect to the attorney The Florida
general issue, I forgot to mention this:
Attorney General's Office became heavily involved in this, probably because of the publicity. I know Miss Cannivet
contacted them, and Senator Saunders contacted them, and they contacted me. were doing. And they wanted to know everything we
And I told them the categories of documents we So they asked GE
have, but I can't give them the documents.
23
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25
for those documents directly.
And they told me, and GE told
me the same, that they met with people at the AG's office, showed them exactly what we looked at. I was able to then
talk to the attorney general, compare what we have seen and what they have seen. And Miss Cannivet also provided them
with thousands of documents, which they reviewed with me, and told me that I am not missing anything in the group of documents that I have. And they actually assisted me in
determining that group of model numbers that I mentioned before, that seemed to be affected. So there was a lot of communication, including with Attorney General Crist, himself, who actually became personally involved in the case at one point, and appointed an assistant just to deal with this case. THE COURT: All right. Let me hear from you. May it please the Court.
Mr. Weinstein?
MR. JEFFREY WEINSTEIN:
Would you rather I approach the lecturn, Your Honor? THE COURT: Please. May it please the Court,
MR. JEFFREY WEINSTEIN: counsel.
Thank you very much for the great privilege of speaking in a Florida court. You have allowed me to be
admitted pro hac vice in this matter, and I certainly appreciate that, as well as my client, Mr. Davis, so thank
ARGUMENT BY MR. JEFFREY WEINSTEIN
24
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25
you very much. THE COURT: Did they charge you a fee? I believe they did, your
MR. JEFFREY WEINSTEIN: Honor. THE COURT: All right.
Although it's probably not
enough for this great honor and opportunity. THE COURT: how long you take. MR. JEFFREY WEINSTEIN: make it brief. Yes, Your Honor. I'll I may have to increase that, depending
And I didn't want to be called Weinstein
Texas, because I didn't want that just to be offensive, so I'll have to continue on whichever way the Court feels about that. My client, Brent Davis, is a member of the class. He received a notice from General Electric. He is one of
the people in the supplementary group that Mr. Weinstein refers to. He has not had an opportunity to object to the
prior hearing that occurred in this case, and, therefore, as a matter of housekeeping, Judge, on behalf of Mr. Davis, I object to all of the affidavits that have been submitted thus far, because they're hearsay, and Mr. Davis has not had an opportunity to cross-examine those witnesses because of the affidavit. And I speak generally of a few affidavits.
The affidavit of, I believe it's Vena Damodar,
25
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25
D A M O D A R. with GE.
I can't even read my own handwriting.
She's
The affidavit of Ken Edwards, he's with the direct The affidavit of Antoinette,
mail company, SDRNNC. R A C I O P P O.
Potentially she's the communications
director at OMD, which I guess had something to do with determining that notice should go to people only that make more than $50,000. Affidavit of William Bonner, program As well as all of
manager/customs relations at GE.
counsels' affidavits concerning attorney's fees. Your Honor, we basically have three points that we object to this class action proposed settlement. One, the extended warranty period is not one year. By agreement, these folks came up with a plan that the extended warranty period would be begin as of the date of the notice, which was January 13, 2006. January 12, 2007. It would run to
So the settlement is not fair,
reasonable, or adequate, and because the additional warranty period covers times in the past, before class members, one, had the right to make an extended warranty claim, and two, before they had the notice of a right to make an extended warranty claim. The extra year of warranty protection runs from January 16, 2006 to January 12, 2007. The settlement will
not be approved, at all, at least until today, August 21, 2006, if that's the Court's pleasure, and the right to make
26
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25
the warranty claim does not exist until the approval is final, contrary to what Mr. Weinstein said a few moments ago. Which is at least 30 days after that. Thus, class
members could not know that they had a warranty protection, and had legal right to warranty protection, during the time period between January 13, 2006, and the final approval of the settlement. Thus, there is no real extra year of
warranty protection, at all. Our second point, Your Honor, is that the -THE COURT: Let me stop you there. Yes, Your Honor.
MR. JEFFREY WEINSTEIN: THE COURT:
Is your complaint about the year
period, or just about when the year starts? MR. JEFFREY WEINSTEIN: THE COURT: When the year begins.
So you don't have a problem with it
being a one-year period, you just want it to start when I sign the order, basically. MR. JEFFREY WEINSTEIN: That's correct, Judge.
And, in fact, that's how I attempted to communicate with Mr. Weinstein, so that we could enhance the value of the class to the participants by extending the time from the time that the Court approves, if it does, this settlement. And Mr. Weinstein was kind enough to then communicate with GE, and I was advised by Mr. Weinstein that GE declined to make that available to the class members.
27
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25
Two, the claim requirement is unreasonable for identified class members. Judge, you've got to remember, GE
knows who these people are that have bought these refrigerators. The settlement is not fair, reasonable, or
adequate because it requires class remembers who, one, GE already knows are class members, and two, desire to receive additional warranty protection, to file a claim to receive any benefits. GE already knows the identity of many of the
class members because they registered with GE, made a warranty claim, or purchased an extended warranty. After
all, how does GE know whom to send notice of these 700,000 such notices in the class? Thus, for class members like Mr. Davis, my client, the objector, GE already knows they're class members, and, based upon the settlement, are already entitled to extended year a warranty relief. There's no reason to make them file
a claim, other than to cut off their rights if they fail to file a claim, by September 4, 2006. So, contrary to what Mr. Weinstein said a few moments ago, if you don't file a claim by September 4, 2006, you do not get the benefit until next year. And the final issue we'd present to the Court, which we -THE COURT: Let me stop you. Yes, Your Honor.
28
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25
THE COURT:
I just need to take some notes here. Thank you.
So your argument essentially is that
everyone who bought a refrigerator should automatically be included, without filing any claim, of any kind. MR. JEFFREY WEINSTEIN: They should automatically
be included, and if there is an attestation requirement, then they should obviously have to file an attestation that they bought a refrigerator, and prove who they are. they should be automatically included. to fill out a claim form. For example, you fill out the claim forms, you're expecting people to send them back, and counsel's given you some numbers on what that means. But basically what you're But
They shouldn't have
doing is cutting off 95 percent of the people's rights, because what you do, by making them send back in the claim form, even though GE knows who they are, is you minimize the number of people who are entitled to benefits. There's no And
basis for that, because GE already knows who they are. they already know they have a defective product. THE COURT: All right. What's number three?
Number three is that the
claim requirement is unreasonable for all other class members. That would be the once that are unidentified. The
settle is not fair, reasonable, or adequate, and we object
29
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25
to some because it requires a class member, who GE has not identified as a class member, who desires to receive additional warranty protection, to file a claim to receive any benefits. If the class members are objectively ascertainable, as they must be for the Court to certify the class, then there's no reason for these claim members to file a claim. If they are a member of the class, they are There is nothing
automatically entitled to this relief.
they need to prove or attest to in a claim form, as evidenced by the fact that the claim form for this relief, unlike the other forms, does not include an attestation clause. They could simply show that they are a member of the class by doing so when they file a claim. There's no
reason to make them file a claim other than to cut off their rights if they fail to file a claim by September 4, 2006. Basically, just trying to eliminate people's rights, Your Honor. THE COURT: So basically, instead of having a
claim filed by September the 4th, 2006, your view would be they can -- they're covered until the end of the one-year period, whether that's January 12th, '07 or whatever I say. MR. JEFFREY WEINSTEIN: That's a great question.
30
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 pleasure.
Under the agreement that these parties have already reached, Judge, if you don't reach an agreement today, and set this off until January of 2007, the class members continue to receive a benefit. Yet if you approve
this settlement, their benefits will be precluded if they don't file a claim by that September deadline. So it's in
the best interests of the class members for the Court not to rule, or to deny the class, and they could continue to do exactly what it is that they have been doing by agreement. THE COURT: Well, it's pretty attractive, telling
the Court that they could not do anything, and it's all right. MR. JEFFREY WEINSTEIN: I think that's right. If
that's the agreement that they have reached, and they would continue to do it, that would be in the best interests of the class members. THE COURT: So you want me just to sit on this
case for what, until I take senior status in about ten years? MR. JEFFREY WEINSTEIN: If that's the Court's
Now, under the agreement, if the Court doesn't actually approve the settlement by a certain date, they can back out; but, if you reset this case until January the 13th, 2007, all the people that I believe I'm arguing
31
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25
on behalf of will continue to receive benefits. THE COURT: going to do that. What's next? MR. JEFFREY WEINSTEIN: THE COURT: All right. I would like the That's it, Judge. You can probably rest assured I'm not
opportunity, if it's okay with the Court, to actually put on some testimony at some time. THE COURT: As to what? As to some of the
questions that I believe are necessary to respond to these issues that I placed before the Court. THE COURT: I'm giving you a chance to argue now.
If you want to make a proffer, you can make a proffer, but I'm not going to hear testimony. initial plan. MR. JEFFREY WEINSTEIN: Your Honor, it's my At least, that's not my
understanding that the evidence would have to be presented to the Court. There is no evidence before the Court.
There's only argument of counsel. THE COURT: That's right so far. So I hope the Court will
allow me the opportunity to place the testimony on the record.
32
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25
THE COURT:
My hope is you are going to tell me
what the -- make a proffer as to what it is. MR. JEFFREY WEINSTEIN: All right. Would the
Court like me to do that at this time? THE COURT: I would. Your Honor, if the Court
will allow me to call a witness, I would go through questions concerning whether it was the intent of this agreement that there'd be an additional one year of warranty protection; that GE is not bound by the settlement until approved; that, when will GE be bound? There's not a
one-year extended warranty, because notice is not the issue. Notice is all notice that will get the right if approved. All class members are entitled to an extended warranty. The
actual claim requirement, GE already knows who many of the club members are. There's no purpose in making 475,000 There's harm to class members from the
people file a claim. requirement.
Basically, the same points apply to
non-identified class members as to identified class members. And I have a hypothetical that I believe will show how unreasonable this entire matter is. THE COURT: I didn't hear anything that's
different than the argument that you made. MR. JEFFREY WEINSTEIN: Would the Court like me to
go through each of the questions that I intend to ask?
33
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 answers. I --
THE COURT:
No.
But, as I heard your proffer,
that's what you just argued to me, all -MR. JEFFREY WEINSTEIN: May I please have the
opportunity to call Mr. Weinstein for a short question and answer, Your Honor? THE COURT: No, sir. At the conclusion of the
hearing, may I have an opportunity to read into the record what my questions would have been? THE COURT: No. I told you I want you to make a Can you
proffer of what your anticipated testimony will be. do that? MR. JEFFREY WEINSTEIN: THE COURT: May I approach.
For what purpose? To show you an outline of
MR. JEFFREY WEINSTEIN: the questions. THE COURT: questions are.
I don't need to know what the
I need to know the proffer. To prove the points that
THE COURT:
Do you know what the answers are? Do I know the answers?
Or are you just fishing. I believe I know the
34
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 Cannivet. of all. please? approach?
THE COURT: argued to me?
Are they different than what you just
I don't know what the
answer is to that, because I don't know how Mr. Weinstein will answer the questions. THE COURT: All right. Thank you. I may sit down?
MR. JEFFREY WEINSTEIN: THE COURT: You may.
Are there any pro s members of the class that are present, that wish to speak? CATHERINE CANNIVET: Yes, Your Honor. May I
THE COURT:
You may.
If you'll use the podium,
CATHERINE CANNIVET: THE COURT:
Good afternoon, Your Honor.
You need to tell me your name, first
CATHERINE CANNIVET:
My name is Catherine
THE COURT:
And spell your last name, please. C A N N I V E T.
CATHERINE CANNIVET: THE COURT: I V E T?
CATHERINE CANNIVET: THE COURT: Okay.
That's correct.
CATHERINE CANNIVET:
Once against, Your Honor, I
ARGUMENT BY MS. CATHERINE CANNIVET
35
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25
find myself in the most uncomfortable position of trying to bring information forward to the Court or a responsible party that we feel that is critical information. I was in
the same position April 27th, and I think that the history and the record demonstrates that the information that my partner and I have tried to provide to class counsel, the Court, the attorney general's office, has, in the past, proved to be beneficial and critical to the class. My partner and I put a web site up April of 2005. At that time, we had no way of anticipating what we were going to learn through this web site and who would be contacting us. We felt a great sense of responsibility for
the information that came into our possession, and we've always tried to provide that to class counsel. never successful. In October of 2005, we supplied what we had to the attorney general's office, and I went to Tampa, and I met with them. Included in those documents and that information We were
was proof that the 20 and the 25-cubic-foot models were defective, and needed to be included in the settlement. that time -- prior to that, they were not going to be included, per Mr. Weinstein. And the reasons he gave me At
that they weren't going to be included did not make sense. The information that has come to us because of this web site comes from thousands of consumers across the
36
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25
country, where we've been contacted by other sources, employees of GE, current and ex, union people. It's . . .
our information has come from sources other than GE, themselves, and it's always proved to be a little bit more different than what class counsel has been able to obtain. They're relying totally on what GE provides to them. As a result of going to the attorney general office, the 20 and the 25's were then included. Had that
not happened, the 304 models would have only be about 150. The second time it happened was prior to the hearing of April 27th. Again, through communications and
information to the web site, we knew that the notification program was seriously flawed. I had a phone conversation with Mr. Weinstein the week before the hearing. I had already sent him some
e-mails, trying to indicate to him that there were problems. During that phone conversation, I stressed to him that this notification problem was so -- so bad, and so flawed, and I asked are you going to do something about it? to me, yes. I said are you going to file an amendment, seek an extension, make some kind of provision for these people that haven't received notification? He said yes. He indicated
I asked him do you know the names of the companies that have managed GE's databases over the years, and the
37
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25
names of the actual databases, which we had already researched, and we had a very good idea where the records were. From the very beginning of this, from before this
class action was filed, when I first got involved, within the first 60 days, the biggest discovery we made was a huge problem with missing service records. So, at any rate, Mr. Weinstein assured me that he was going to do something. Just prior to the hearing, we checked. that nothing had been filed. We saw
Outside of the courtroom, in
the hallway, I asked him, are you going to do something about the database problem? away. And he just grimaced and walked
It was at that point that I filed that last-minute
plea that I did, because I didn't feel that they were even going to bring the subject up. Counsel stood here and represented to the Court that GE brought this to his attention just that morning. That was not true. Thankfully, the Judge -- you know --
recognized that, once GE admitted the problem, and Mr. Weinstein admitted the problem, she granted the extension, and, as a result, another 270 some thousand people were identified. It's disturbing and frightening to
think that, had we not taken that action that morning, that this would have received approval at that time. It's a very difficult position to be in when
38
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25
you -- when you . . . find yourself in a position where you've received information that is very important, and it's not limited to information that we have made public through the attorney general's office. There's other information
that has come to us that is sensitive, very, very important, that I've tried to provide to class counsel. There was a time I received contact from a source, and I knew this was a very serious situation, and critical, and I sent an e-mail to Mr. Weinstein, and asked if I could meet with him, confidentially, over something very important. It was something I didn't even want to speak I did not receive a reply. I left a
about over the phone.
phone message detailing the nature and the source of the contact, and that I needed to speak to him. reply. And this has happened continuously throughout this entire process. Information that we desire to turn over to He did not
a party that would take possession of it and be responsible for it, it never happened. Aside from what we've provided But we are still sitting
to the attorney general's office.
on information that we have always felt is very critical to this class. As far as me being a member or not a member, I do have that proof today. I am a member of the class.
Mr. Weinstein's known this all along.
39
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25
At the hearing, the subject of my status as a member came up, again, at the end of the hearing. The
notice and claim forms with my name and address on it, from the GE moisture office, I had with me, in court, and my partner handed them to Mr. Weinstein; and he stood in this courtroom, with those forms in his hands, and represented to the Judge that I was not a member. At this point, after the
hearing of April 27th, communications began to pour in from members who were not receiving the benefits. The claims administration process is flawed. are denying people that have valid claims, and this is happening in a horrendous manner. These class members are They
taking the time to read the notice, understand it, fill out the forms, dig out receipts, only to be denied. And these
are people that have had moisture related repairs, they may have had five or six repairs, and they're not being given their refrigerator. People that have paid for moisture They're being
related repairs are not being reimbursed.
told that's not moisture related, when, clearly, from what I understand, and my knowledge of these refrigerators, these are moisture related repairs. The reason we felt we needed to approach the Court again, we came to that conclusion, end of July, because it was just very clear to us there was a real problem with the claims administration process.
ARGUMENT BY MS. CATHERINE CANNIVET After the hearing of April 27th, I sent an e-mail communication to Mr. Weinstein, asking him to clarify his statements to the Court that I wasn't a member. I asked
40
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25
for him to make a determination, am I or am I not a member. He replied that he -- and I explained the reasons I felt I was a member. His response was, "I see your point. I'll
have to think about this." back.
I never received a response
Weeks later, when we felt it was time to turn the information that we had over again, I wanted to approach the Court in the proper manner. At the last hearing, the Judge
told me that I should not have tried to go to class counsel or the attorney general's office, I should have come to the court; so I knew, this time, we had to approach the Court. We are not attorneys. So I need to determine first of all, how do I approach the Court. intervenor? As a member objector? As a nonmember
I sent another e-mail communication to
Mr. Weinstein, the second time, asking for clarification, and told him this would determine my future actions. never heard back from Mr. Weinstein. I
He was out of the
office until August 7th, so I gave it . . . August 7th, I didn't hear from him, 8th or the 9th. At that point, my
partner and I were prepared to submit an objection, me as a member, her as a nonmember intervenor. We didn't know what
41
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25
else to do. And then I placed a phone call to Mr. Mason's office, and he did confirm my status, on the 14th, as a member. That's why I filed -- the objection was late. I
was trying to ascertain how do I approach the Court. approached as a member, and Mr. Weinstein would again
If I
represent to the Court that I wasn't a member, I may not have been able to even speak. So it was at my -- my ability
to even find out how to bring information forward was impeded because I was not given an answer. As a member, Mr. Weinstein represents me in this class. I think it was entitled to a quick and honest answer
to whether or not I was a member. We have accumulated thousands of pages of evidence. The communications that have come in since
April 27th, I think, are most important. I did come prepared here, today, with some examples of what people are saying. I'm not sure if you
want to receive that now, but all we desire to do, and all we've ever desired to do, is to turn over information we feel is very important; and, in the past, we have demonstrated we have been correct. Regarding the recent filings by Mr. Weinstein, I expected a strong reaction, but I honestly expected it to be honest and professional. He attacks my credibility by
42
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25
making an outrageous lie, in a signed court document, under penalty of perjury. I couldn't believe he did it. That I
asked him, or demanded $10,000, for documents, when he came to my home, for the record, that is not true. For the
record, we've never exploited the situation, or attempted to make money off it. Throughout the past year, the whole time we have had that web site up, many people have tried to encourage it to go nonprofit, put Pay Pal up, at least try to recoup your expenses. We have incurred expenses to this point, and we
purposely never put Pay Pal out, and never tried to solicit money from anybody, because we thought it would bring our credibility under question. We have remained on this issue,
and worked very hard all this time, because we felt responsible for putting that web site up, and we felt a sense of responsibility to the people and the members who were providing information to us, and we never wanted our credibility ever questioned. That is an absolute untruth
that we ever demanded $10,000 from him. The e-mails that he included, the pages and pages of e-mails, he was selective in the e-mails he chose. I
think that, if e-mails are going to be submitted, all of them should be. I think it gives a more accurate picture.
There were many times that I sent him e-mails, he did not respond to me. Phone call messages I left, he did not
43
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25
return.
And these were -- at times, these were at critical
points, where information that we had went beyond just a communication that we received from someone that I wanted to forward to him. It was at critical times throughout the
process, when we felt that a source that came to us, or that a source that needed to be investigated, or something that we had acquired needed to be turned over. In his e-mail communications, he tried to make it look like he was interested in the information. But what's
interesting is, once he would put that in an e-mail that he wanted to receive it, when I would try to attempt to pick a time or place to deliver it, or have him pick them up, he wouldn't return my call, he wouldn't return the e-mail. So it's been a difficult position to be in, because we -- you know, I felt, way back in the beginning, that -- when the settlement agreement was announced, I was extremely pleased with the benefits. are, do rectify the problem. The benefits, as they
But what happened was the We discovered that.
notification process was flawed. First.
And, with the claims administration, the benefits They are entitled to
are not being provided to the members.
those benefits, and they shouldn't be denied valid claims. The monitoring mechanism that should be in place, all that is in place is that GE is turning over reports. It's the fox patrolling the hen house. I don't think that
44
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25
GE's records have ever been reliable, nor should they be trusted, because the information that we get from sources other than GE seems to always prove itself correct. The only reason I'm here today is just to bring it to the Court's attention that, if this receives final approval today, all of these people that have attempted to get the benefits, they did not get them, and they never will. And anyone, from this point forward, that tries to
get benefits, may run into extreme difficulty. It's not isolated cases we're hearing. also people, still -- it concerns me. There's
I'm not quite sure
that everyone that was accessible on a database has still been found. I have had a couple communications, in the past
week, people that had extended warranty contracts through Sears, had repairs through Sears, yet didn't receive notice. So I don't -- I don't know what's wrong there. Our concern here, today, is if you would prove this -- I understand you have to follow rules. respect any decision you make. I will
But if this receives final
approval today, my feeling is that a great many people that have been harmed have not received justice and restitution, and a great many people that are in a situation, right now, being harmed, are never going to be made whole again, or be treated fair. That's all I have to say unless you have any
45
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25
questions. THE COURT: I do. I can't tell whether you object
to the settlement, itself, or to the monitoring mechanism. THE DEFENDANT: mechanism. It would be the monitoring
I researched thoroughly, Your Honor, class
actions, and what courts seek in a class action; and, when the settlement was announced, I thought it was extremely fair. It truly did provide the benefits that were needed.
But the settlement is only fair if the people are receiving the benefits. I think the problem here is the monitoring mechanism, and I think that's been a problem from the beginning; and that goes way back in December of 2004, when I first discovered the problem of missing service records had been . . . throughout this entire process, the missing service records, missing data bases, and it goes beyond that. The moisture related definition is very broad. It
encompasses a great deal of symptoms, but, yet, where we get into a problem is, when it comes down to the specific parts, or the nature of the repair, is where people are being denied. I know, myself, from my own personal experience, when I owned the first refrigerator, in 2001, there was -for a long time, GE, and nobody else, could figure out what was wrong with these refrigerators. There was misdiagnoses.
46
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25
Technicians, including GE technicians, were replacing motherboards, defrost heaters, everything. find out how to fix these things. So, consequently, many people, once they were out of warranty, paid for repairs, only to discover it didn't correct the problem. repair. Then they'd have to pay for another Nobody could
And these are people that spent 200, 300, $500 in
repairs, only to have the refrigerators still not fixed. And then, when they submit a claim, they're being denied, saying, well, that's not a moisture related repair. And
then, when the people question GE, well, what is a moisture related part or repair, they're not given answers. The
defects with these refrigerators have more to do with the design than anything else. wrong, and many parts fail. So, consequently, many things go Parts that rust, and motors
overwork and burn out, and everything goes wrong with them. But what I'm concerned about is the couple years there, that time frame when they didn't know what was wrong, they didn't know how to fix it. At some point, I think
2005, they started replacing doors, and they discovered that that fixed a lot of the problems. But then again, many
people who were getting their doors replaced, it was not fixing the problems. fourth set of doors. There's so many things wrong with these People were on their second, third,
47
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25
refrigerators, if it was as simple as saying this part is defective, or that's what is wrong, this would go so much easier; but, because there are so many problems, and so many things wrong, and so many parts that go bad and have to be replaced, to allow GE to pick and choose, and tell people what they're going to be reimbursed for and what they're not, is not fair, and it's creating difficulty, because GE's own techs were misdiagnosing these things, and didn't know how to fix them. And so you've got all these people paying
for these repairs that are not getting their money back. The product was so bad, I don't even know that they should be allowed to even pick one part that they are going to not reimburse for, because both sides of the unit have problems, and fail. It's a horrendous . . . horrendous
problem, and there's no definition as to what parts, what nature of the repairs, number one; but, number two, you have to think of all those people, for the good couple years, who were getting repairs, or paying for repairs, when it wasn't correcting the problem. They should get their money back.
It's not their fault that nobody could diagnose what was wrong with their refrigerators and how to correct the problem. These consumers suffered during those times. The health and safety hazards, Your Honor, honestly, is the reason me and my partner have stayed on this for so long. Because we read the communications from
48
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25
people.
I have personally read 3,000 communications.
have taken phone calls. I wish that class counsel would have taken the time to access the 2500 pages that are at the attorney general's office, and read what people say, how this affects them. That is the only reason we have spent almost two
years on this, and have not abandoned the project, because we understand the seriousness of it, and the harm that has been done to people. These are lower end refrigerators. These are not
the higher end models, so the people that got stuck with these things are generally middle or lower income people. These are hard working people, young families with children, seniors on fixed income, people lives on disability, the most vulnerable, and weakest of the class, because people that had the money, that got tired of it, got rid of their GE, and went and replaced it with something else. people weren't harmed as great. breakdowns, they got rid of it. If they had three The ones that were stuck Those
and hurt were those that to couldn't afford to replace their refrigerator, and have had to live with breakdown after breakdown after breakdown. I know, personally, what, that's like, and I went through it. And when you have a family, and a home, and
children, and you're trying to keep your food safely, and
49
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25
you have to throw out food when you just went grocery shopping, and it breaks down, and you have to take off work to meet a technician, get it repaired, only to find that it breaks again, it's a nightmare to live with. Fortunately for me, I never had to pay for any of my repairs, because I'm a strong person, and I refused. My
neighbor across the street, who was a nice, sweet, polite person, never fought with GE, and she paid for her repairs. Same refrigerator, same problem. THE COURT: Let me stop you, because I think you'd
go for as long as I let you. CATHERINE CANNIVET: THE COURT: I would. You know,
That's my sense of it.
after you vent a little bit against GE, that's fine, but is the bottom line still that you think the agreement should be approved, but it's the enforcement, or the monitoring of the agreement, that you have your problems with? the bottom line? CATHERINE CANNIVET: agreement should be enforced. Yes. I think the settlement Is that still
I think that an outside,
independent monitoring mechanism needs to come in and review these claims that have been denied, and take over the claims administration, so that it's done fairly. THE COURT: they should do. So if GE does what the agreement says
50
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25
CATHERINE CANNIVET: been fine. THE COURT:
Yes, everything would have
You don't have a problem with that. I wouldn't have had a problem
CATHERINE CANNIVET: with the notification. claims administration. settlement agreement.
I wouldn't have a problem with I've always been final with the
Where the problems came up, and where I was disappointed with class counsel, is that no one was watching out for what was happening to the members, which we knew and I couldn't even give that information to him. bottom line. That's the
I just want to see the people get what they
were promised, and those that have been denied, I think those should be located, and should be reconsidered, and they should be refunded the money that they paid for repairs. THE COURT: All right. Thank you.
CATHERINE CANNIVET: THE COURT:
Thank you, Your Honor.
Mr. Weinstein. Yes, Your Honor.
MR. SCOTT WEINSTEIN: THE COURT:
Why don't you address -- well, I
suppose in whatever order, I guess I'm . . . I'm interested in your response to Mr. Weinstein's argument that, basically, your year isn't a year, because, particularly with the duly noticed people, they're well short of a year.
51
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25
MR. SCOTT WEINSTEIN: not a year, necessarily. THE COURT:
That's true.
The year is
Why shouldn't it be a year? What Miss Cannivet just
MR. SCOTT WEINSTEIN: raised explains it.
In a way, we're being punished for The year was never a
implementing the benefits immediately. year.
Maybe unfortunately, there's some language that the
additional warranty protection lasts for one year from the beginning date of the notice. That's the one place in the It
settlement agreement where the word a "year" comes from. didn't say a year of protection. it. The purpose was for me.
That wasn't the purpose of And
The purpose was for us.
if Miss Cannivet -- and sometimes she did -- would forward customer complaints to me, I would handle them for her. did I that on the few occasions she sent them. What I would do is contact Mr. Bogard directly, and say here is a consumer who says that they are a member of the class -- and, by the way, let me add that just because you have a claim form and a notice doesn't mean that you're a member, because you can call the toll free number and request one, and one is mailed to you. for one gets one. Anyone who asks And
So having one, having one, having one
doesn't mean you're a member of the class. Immediately, upon implementation of this, of the benefit program, people got service. Therefore, the
52
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25
neighbor across the street from Miss Cannivet will get reimbursed, or has gotten reimbursed, for that service. Miss Cannivet didn't pay for repairs. If her
neighbor paid out of pocket, this program provided this neighbor should have gotten his money back by now, because of the immediate implementation. The purpose of the
immediate implementation was so that, by the time we got here today, much, if not most, of this would be done, and people wouldn't be suffering the way Miss Cannivet said. people are poor, they don't have to pay. If
Or even if they're If people need
wealthy, they don't have to pay for service.
a new refrigerator, they get a new refrigerator. About the most important thing, I think, about what she said, is that there is a program in the settlement agreement and in the record that there is a special master that this Court will appoint, if necessary, to solve problems between GE and the consumer, and we will get involved in that. by this Court. And then there is also a de novo review
There is a procedure for that.
But better yet, if Miss Cannivet would forward any e-mails she gets to me, I will take care of it. hours a day taking care of that. I spend
I work with Mr. Bogard.
He gets in touch with Bill Bauer, who's the head of customer relations, and we deal with it. That's how you help the consumer. Not by having
53
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25
web sites, and doing all of these things, and getting paranoid, and worrying about all kinds of cover ups. The
bottom line is it doesn't matter why these refrigerators are going bad, it doesn't matter if they know how to fix them. If they can't fix them, then they get a new one. We knew that it was going to be complicated figuring out why, so we didn't define the class as somebody who has this particular part broken. We said, if you have
one of these symptoms, you get free service; and if it can't be fixed, you get a new refrigerator. happening all of this time. Your Honor, going back to what Mr. Weinstein said, there is no right, as he kept saying -- he said there is a right to have additional warranty protection. not. We think we have a good case. No, there is And that's been
But we don't have the
ultimate Uber case. try this case.
There are some problems if we had to
It's very complicated.
The settlement agreement was a product of negotiation. There was give and take. As I said before, I knew this
the biggest problem was media implementation.
could go on, and on, and on, and it would be a nightmare. And I remember these conversations what about the people now? We don't want until -- we thought it would be April, Think of the problems that would create.
now it's August.
And they gave in, they said okay, starting now, we'll start
54
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25
fixing refrigerators for free. reimbursements.
We will even start
But, you know, Your Honor, we would have had loved, for instance, if GE said, you know what, we're going to give -- we're going to agree, by this settlement agreement, a lifetime warranty. anybody who has a problem, we'll just replace it; and if that Breaks, we'll give them a new one, forever, for their whole life. That would have
been wonderful, and we would have, of course, felt very happy about that because we want the best results for the consumer. Or, perhaps, if GE said we'll give the consumer They
$200 and a new refrigerator, we would have been happy. didn't do that.
We agreed to do what they agreed to do.
The test is not whether it could be better, the test is whether it's unfair. Mr. Weinstein said it's unfair
because consumers have a right to have additional warranty protection. they don't have a right to it. The settlement
agreement gives them that right if they are a member of the settlement class, and if they send in a claim form. creates that right. GE. And GE had their reasons for doing that. were logistical reasons. were going to need it. infrastructure. There That
And that's a matter of negotiation with
They had to know how many people
They had to set up the
Settlement instructions, I don't want to go
55
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25
into detail unless Mr. Bogard wants to explain, but it doesn't matter why it was necessary, because it was negotiated, approved preliminarily, and it's fair. was no such right. And, frankly, let's face it, what kind of individual claim could Mr. Brent Davis have brought? There's no evidence, number one, that he's even a class member. I'm willing to assume he is, by the way. I'm There
willing to assume he has a refrigerator.
I don't want to
mischaracterize what Mr. Weinstein says, because, at one point -- we've talked several times. I thought he said that And
Mr. Davis has not had a problem with his refrigerator.
then Mr. Weinstein says, no, don't mischaracterize what I said. I didn't say that. I said I don't know if he has a So I'll stick with that.
problem with his refrigerator.
What kind of individual claim could he had brought? Well, I don't know if I have a problem with my
refrigerator, but I'm going to sue GE in Texas state court, where, by the way, I believe the statute of limitations would have run by then, and then he would have no case. instead, he says don't approve the settlement. So,
Well, if the
settlement is not approved, and I believe he knows this, that GE has no obligation, whatsoever, to this class. If Your Honor says I deny your motion to approve it, it's over. The people in the pipeline don't get a new
56
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25
refrigerator, the additional warranty protection gets cut off, and that's it. One day, we go to trial, at the end of
next year, 2008 and that's the bottom line. I don't know if Mr. Davis has a problem with his refrigerator, at all. What could he do, in his individual I think
case, that's better than what we've done for him? that's really the question. THE COURT:
Well, what's the answer to the
questions Mr. Weinstein was putting in the record with regard to the settlement? I mean as to his -- as to the
second group of people, essentially, I mean, they have a shorter period than the first group, so some class members are more equal than others. MR. SCOTT WEINSTEIN: opposite. THE COURT: Okay. I think what he's saying is I think it's just the
it ought to start today, if Your Honor were to approve it, and move for a year, or any amount of time from today. that would have cut off people from the past. What was Well
really happening, I think Mr. Bogard, even if he has to testify about this, because he's doing this at GE, even if somebody didn't know about the settlement -- and this was negotiated -- if they called up and said I have a problem with my refrigerator, come fix it, they get the service for
57
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25
free.
And that's been happening since January of this year. The notice, I believe, was adequate, more than
adequate, even without the supplemental notice. publication notice rendered it adequate.
The
But we had to
do -- and, by the way, as Your Honor knows, and I don't know if I need to raise it any more, what Miss Cannivet says is untrue. morning. We didn't know about that notice issue until that If we knew about it, these gentlemen would not
have flown in from out of town, and we wouldn't have spent the time and energy getting ready. what the problem is. We told the Court here's And I
We learned it that morning.
believe that they learned it that morning, because that's what they told us. It's just the opposite that some people get more than others. What really happens is that everybody gets the Everybody began getting
same thing from the same moment.
free service from GE so that it's implemented at that moment, for everybody, whether he knew about it or not. And the interesting thing is, from the conversations I had with Mr. Weinstein, if Mr. Davis doesn't know he has a problem with his refrigerator, then he's not going to know that he's going to get free service because he doesn't have a problem. He doesn't have a problem at all.
And if he did have a problem, and paid for it, he'd get reimbursed. And if he had three problems, and paid for it,
58
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25
he'd get reimbursed and he'd get a new refrigerator.
And he So
has a problem after, he'd still get a new refrigerator. it starts now and goes forward from the same date.
Nobody
ever said everybody gets a year of warranty protection. THE COURT: It may have started at the same time,
but some people knew it was there, and some people didn't know, as I understand it. MR. SCOTT WEINSTEIN: THE COURT: Right.
So if you are one of those that don't
know that this period had started back in January, you may not call GE. You may call a local person -Right. And how would
MR. SCOTT WEINSTEIN: THE COURT:
-- to get it repaired.
you then take advantage of this? MR. SCOTT WEINSTEIN: Well, if you're in the You
supplemental class, you're going to get reimbursed. will get reimbursed if you pay for something.
But if you
call GE, or any GE authorized repair person, they would know about this moisture program. And they have known. And I
know, anecdotally, that they know, because I hear from consumers, and that's what GE's program has been. It would have been unfair to actually change that date. The only people that do have a longer additional
warranty protection, by the way -- and we negotiated this -are people who paid for an extended warranty up to a certain
59
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25
point because they paid extra to get it.
We said it ought
to go longer for them, because they actually paid for money for it, and I don't want that to overlap, I don't want to take away a right from somebody who had one. But everybody
who owns one of these refrigerators, who has a problem, gets free service, whether they send the claim form in, whether they knew about it, whether they didn't know about it. THE COURT: How about the arguments that, for both
the known and the unknown, really shouldn't have a claim form, at all, they'd just automatically be covered through the end of the time period? MR. SCOTT WEINSTEIN: We negotiated it this way --
and it was part of the negotiation that this is the mechanism by way. For instance, if somebody called just for
service, and didn't know about the class, the GE -- and I know this, anecdotally, directly from consumers, would tell them, well, we're going to send you a claim form. Send it
back, and we're going to issue this additional warranty protection for you. Whether they knew about it or not.
Whether they threw the claim form in the garbage when it was sent the first time. So everybody that had this problem
from January 12th through this coming year has this additional warranty protection. MR. MASON: Your Honor. Let me just address that question,
ARGUMENT BY MR. MASON
60
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25
Mr. Weinstein had said that one of the reasons he contacted me was because of the Maytag washer settlement. Weinstein. Was because of the Maytag settlement. And one
of the provisions in that settlement was preregistration, that, if you wanted to get the benefits of the settlement whether your defect manifested or not, you had to make a claim by a certain date. And my opposing counsel knew I was And when I negotiated with
associated with that case.
Maytag, when I negotiated this, that's not my first choice for a provision. The first choice was to get very much like
Mr. Weinstein suggested, to say why can't, as soon as somebody gets a defect, that's when a consumer would first know about it, why can't you get -- just why bother with a claim form? Why not make a call and get relief?
We lost that argument in the negotiations with Maytag in a sense. Not that we lost it, but we weren't Nevertheless, that
successful in getting that provision.
was a national settlement that was approved. When we tried to take the strategy again, here -and again, what did I hear from Mr. Bogard? Well,
Mr. Mason, I'm looking at your Maytag settlement that was just negotiated by you and approved, that's a provision that other judges have found acceptable. negotiating position, for sure. So it put us in a weak
And the truth is, there is If there's greater
nothing unfair about that provision.
61
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25
benefits that you can have a for a consumer, there's nothing inherently unfair about it. about it to Mr. Davis. And there's nothing unfair
All he has to do is fill out a claim
form, and take advantage of the extended warranty. It's something that Maytag and now GE insist upon, I imagine, because they want to know what their exposure is, from their perspective, from their business department says look, we are going to go ahead with the settlement. our exposure? What's
And their lawyers have to go back and say All those claim forms will be
we'll know by a certain date.
in, and we will look at our books and see what our exposure is. So they have very compelling reasons, on their side, to
want that kind of provision, and it gets negotiated, and it's just one of many, many terms that becomes a part of the settlement process. MR. JEFFREY WEINSTEIN: further heard for just a moment? THE COURT: for me. MR. JEFFREY WEINSTEIN: May it please the Court. Your Honor, in the notice that my client received, the supplemental notice of class settlement, in Section 3(b)(1), additional warranty protection, Mr. Weinstein says that my client doesn't have a right. But Thank your, Your Honor. You may. If you come up to the podium Your Honor, may I be
62
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25
apparently he does.
The additional warranty protection runs
for one year, from January 13 of 2006 to January 12, 2007. And, if I had been allowed to ask Mr. Weinstein this one hypothetical, I would have asked him, "Let's assume that my client was identified by GE, and that he makes a warranty claim for covered moisture problems on November the 15th of 2006, and the settlement is final." have any trouble assuming that. Under the settlement, that would be within the extended warranty period; correct? And it would have been. I think he wouldn't
So this would be the very alleged benefit that the settlement was entitled to provide him. That's correct.
And, when he made the claim, GE could ask the exact same questions that they're asking everybody else in the claim form to ensure that he's a member of the class; correct? And that's true. Yet, under the settlement, Your Honor, he would not be entitled to any relief simply because he did not identify himself to GE earlier, before he had the moisture problem; correct? And I believe Mr. Weinstein would answer
that that's correct. THE COURT: Is that how you would answer it? Of course, because there is
MR. SCOTT WEINSTEIN: still a claim cutoff.
The time in the past doesn't matter,
because he hasn't had a problem with his refrigerator.
63
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 Correct.
THE COURT: the 4th of '06.
The claim cutoff being September
Right.
Which he clearly
knows about, because, according to the documents, he received a claim form in May. tried to send it in. THE COURT: So, basically, he has to send in a And I don't think he's even
claim by December the 4th of '06, even though the time period expires, what, three months, four months later? MR. SCOTT WEINSTEIN: January 12th of '07.
And assuming, in the same
line of questioning, Judge it's not going to be final if the Court were to agree to it today. appellate time, etcetera. There would be an
So he may not be entitled to any
of that benefit, whatsoever. THE COURT: Say that again. Sure. Just because, if
the Court chooses to approve the settlement today, it doesn't mean that he has from August 21st until January to get a claim form in, or September to get his one year, because it's not over when it's over today. opportunity for an appeal. request a rehearing. There's the
There's an opportunity to
I mean, things of this nature could Which
extend the period beyond January the 12th, 2007.
64
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25
wouldn't allow him the opportunity to even have the benefit that he's entitled to pursuant this settlement. And I
think, if I was allowed to ask Mr. Weinstein if it was the intent of the parties to provide one year of additional warranty protection, he would say that was correct, and that it wasn't the intent to provide less than a year additional warranty protection, and it was not the intent to provide no additional warranty protection, which is essentially what would happen if the Court approved the settlement, yet we go through some appellate timetable, and he doesn't get the benefit. THE COURT: That's not what he's told me. I think, if we asked him
if it was the intent to provide a year of additional warranty protection, he would say that's correct. THE COURT: I think he would tell you that he has
provided a year, or it will be come January the 12th. MR. JEFFREY WEINSTEIN: But wouldn't the class
members who received this notice be entitled to the notice of the year? They didn't receive that. They are not going
to get what he has negotiated for. know about that. THE COURT: All right.
They are entitled to
What -- I have something
else I was going to ask you. MR. JEFFREY WEINSTEIN: And I believe -- if could
65
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25
I.
I believe, if I asked him if the federal rules of civil
procedure say that this action is not binding until approved by the Court, he would agree with me there, that the settlement agreement, itself, provides GE is not bound to provide any of the relief, not bound to provide any of the relief, until the Court approves the settlement, he would say that's correct. That, because GE is not bound by the
settlement until it's finally approved that, neither the settlement agreement nor the preliminary order required GE to provide additional warranty protection before there is a final approval of the settlement. They don't have to.
They're just doing this voluntarily. Agree with me that the settlement agreement provides that the effective date of the settlement shall mean the later of, one, the day after the deadline for the filing of any appeals from the final order and judgment, if no notice of appeal is filed; or, if any notice of appeal from the final order and judgment is filed, the day following the date on which the final order and judgment is not subject to final judicial review and appeal. So, if the Court was going to approve the settlement today, there's not appeal, then the earliest the settlement would be effective would be September the 20th, 2006. 30 days to appeal under federal rules of appellate
procedure, 4A1(a).
66
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25
And, if the appeal is filed, in all likelihood, the settlement would not be final until after January 12th, 2007. I think he'd agree with me there. If the Court does not approve the settlement, class members will have no legal right, under the settlement, to get an additional year of warranty protection. I think he would agree with me there.
Similarly, class members had no legal right to receive the additional warranty protection between January 13, 2006, and today, because the settlement was not final. I think he'd agree with me there. So, if a class member made a warranty claim in January of 2006, GE was not bound, at that time, to the extended warranty, was it. They did it voluntarily. I think he would agree with me that Mr. Davis is a member of the class. The settlement provides that all class No, they weren't bound to it.
members are entitled to the additional warranty protection. I think he would agree with me. There's no requirement they have suffered any problems with the refrigerator, so to argue that he must have some problem is not true. There is no requirement of
any moisture related problems to be entitled to the extra protection. agreement. You're entitled pursuant to the settlement Nothing in the claim form for additional
67
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25
warranty protection that requires class members to state they have suffered a moisture related loss, is there. think he would agree with that. That this is not a warranty claim. Basically what And I
we have means we got a settlement claim to receive additional warranty protection. me there. And the sole purpose is to confirm that the claimant is, in fact, a member of the class. would agree with me there. If I could, Judge, I handled a case involving Western Union where Western Union -- I was class counsel -where Western Union charged people a different rate if they used a credit card versus using cash. Western Union was We sent I think he I think he would agree with
able to identify all the members of the class. checks to everybody.
We didn't require a claim form.
Whether it be 50 cents, two dollars, $25, whatever it was. We just sent the money out. that could occur here. THE COURT: I suppose the question is, is this I think that that's something
something that has to occur here in order to make it fair? MR. JEFFREY WEINSTEIN: It is not something that
has to occur, it's just, in order to provide my client with what he was provided by notice, the arrangements that have been reached here do not comply with the notice that my
68
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25
client received.
He's not receiving the benefit that his He's being denied that benefit. If I understand class counsel's
counsel argued for. THE COURT:
position -- and I'll have him tell me in a minute -- his view would be your client is because he's getting a year, the same year that anybody else would get. January of '06 to January of '07. MR. JEFFREY WEINSTEIN: How did he know about it That is, from
prior to the time that he got the notice from the folks that knew he existed, GE, we he didn't get until June? THE COURT: Well, if I understand the class
counsel's position correctly, it is that, if your client had a problem with the refrigerator during that time period, and would have called GE, or one of the service people for GE, he would have been notified; but, since he hasn't had a problem, presumably, that hasn't happened. MR. JEFFREY WEINSTEIN: I don't know how to answer
that, because we -- I don't think there's a deposition in this case where anybody has been asked of the risk department of GE, or the engineers of GE, how often this defect occurs. There is no deposition in this case that we
could tell if anybody knows the defect rate, or anything like that; but, in light of what was negotiated on behalf of my client -- and, by the way, I think my client's objection applies to a lot more people than just Brent Davis. It
69
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25
applies to all the people that received the supplemental notice. They are not receiving the benefit that was
bargained for here. I hear what he's saying. make a claim today. My client could still But the truth
No question about that.
of the matter is he doesn't get the one-year extended warranty from the date the Court approves this settlement. He only gets a couple of months if there's not an appeal. If there is an appeal, he gets nothing. THE COURT: Well, in that sense, he's like
everyone else, isn't he? MR. JEFFREY WEINSTEIN: have the class action. Correct. And no need to
It's over.
The only thing left is,
really, the attorneys fees for the plaintiffs' class counsel. In all truthfulness. THE COURT: All right. May I sit down?
MR. JEFFREY WEINSTEIN: THE COURT: MR. WALLER: THE COURT: MR. WALLER: You may.
Your Honor, may I be heard, please? You may. A couple of things I'd like to, If I could go back, for
hopefully, clear up, Your Honor.
just a moment, to put this in the real context, what we're dealing with here are refrigerators that were manufactured in 2001 and 2002. Just those two years that we're dealing
ARGUMENT BY MR.
WALLER
70
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25
with.
The youngest refrigerator here would have been So what GE -- in
manufactured in December of '02.
negotiating the settlement, GE looked at these units that are all four, five, six years old, and decided, well, we'll give -- and, ordinarily, when a refrigerator is sold, it may have a one-year warranty for defects in design or parts. the ordinary warranties with respect to these units would have expired -- for the youngest unit, would have expired in December of '03. The end of December of '03. So
So now we're here in '06 and '07, and what GE negotiated and agreed to do was, for everybody, on these units that are from '01 and '02, for everybody, we will give an extended warranty until January of '07. units. For all of those
And, whether or not the person files a claim in
January of '06, gets notice in January of '06, gets notice in March of '06, gets notice in September of '06, most of the people here got notice by the end of June of '06, including the supplemental notice. The great bulk of the So whether or
supplemental notice went out in June of '06.
not the claims -- we're still dealing with units from '01 and '02, and with now getting the benefit under the settlement is a warranty -- additional warranty protection, until January of '07, for all of those units. If you try to carve out the people -- let's say just the supplemental notice people -- and say, well, their
ARGUMENT BY MR.
WALLER
71
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25
claim deadline is not until September 4, and, therefore, they're entitled to a year from September 4 of '06 to September 4 of '07, then they're going to have a benefit that's greater than the benefit of the great bulk of the class members. The great bulk of the class members have this benefit for their units, which are the same age, whether the class member got notice in the first group or the second group, we're talking about refrigerators of the same age, and those refrigerators GE negotiated to have an extended warranty until January of '07. That's the economic --
fundamental economic term that was negotiated here. Now, Mr. Weinstein would like to rewrite the settlement agreement. negotiated. He would like to rewrite what GE
And Mr. Weinstein correctly referred to, and
Mr. Mason correctly referred to the fact that there are internal economic reasons that went into GE's thinking, in what it was willing to agree to, and what it negotiated; and that's what it negotiated. Now, with respect to, Your Honor, the idea of, well, GE knew the members of the class, why should anybody have to file a claim -THE COURT: Let me come back to that in a minute.
I want to go back -- I've got a question on what you've just argued.
ARGUMENT BY MR.
WALLER
72
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25
The reason for the delay, or the shortened time period, though, isn't the fault of the class members. As I
understand it, it was a problem of notice that GE and class counsel had. And I'm not assigning fault. Whatever the
reason was, because you didn't give notice until June, that shortened some class members to a three-month period of notice. I mean, they may have the same one-year period, but
they didn't know they had it until at least June of '06, and it expires in September of '06. MR. WALLER: same refrigerator. But the point is, they've got the
They've got the same refrigerator that's
warrantied, ordinarily -- without the settlement, the warranty would have expired back in September of '03; and whether or not they knew about this, if they had a problem -- if they had a problem, they would have -- this has been argued, I don't want to repeat, Your Honor, but if they had a problem, they would call up either GE, or they would call up somebody else. The other point to make, Your Honor, is the focus has been on this supplemental notice. But you also had
112 million publications of advertisements publishing this notice back in January and February. Now, we don't know,
Mr. -- Mr. Davis is saying I didn't get notice until I got my direct notice as a supplemental notice person. We don't
know how many of those people got notice through publication
ARGUMENT BY MR.
WALLER
73
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25
back in January, anyway. know. He is not here.
And maybe Mr. Davis did.
We don't We've
He is not here to testify.
got argument from his lawyer, but we don't know those facts. And he says his objection may apply to lots of other people. We don't know how many of those other people -- even if you look at the notice issue, we don't know how many of those other people got notice of this through the 112 million publications back in January and February. THE COURT: Didn't Judge Covington basically cross
that bridge, already, when she said you had to give more detail? MR. WALLER: notice. She said we had to give more direct
She also said we had gone above and beyond the call So she appreciated the But if you are talking
of duty in the notice that we gave. publication notice that was given.
any individual person, or particular class member, you don't know. But the point, is Your Honor, whether or not the person became aware, either they had a problem, or they didn't have a problem; and there's no reason to suspect that, because somebody got notice, let's say, in June or July, there's no reason to think that their refrigerator is going to have a -- is more likely to have a problem after January of '07 than somebody who got notice back in June, or back in January or February, of '06.
ARGUMENT BY MR.
WALLER
74
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25
The likelihood of there being a problem if they had not had one before, the likelihood of there being a problem after January of '07 is the same. And what GE will
do, whether or not they have to, they'll look at these things, case by case, even if the problem occurred after January of '07; but as far as what they are required to do, there's nothing in the law that requires a rewriting of this agreement, Your Honor, to be fair to the class members. They all had the same refrigerators of the same age. THE COURT: One of the things that -- addressing
the immediacy issue that Mr. Weinstein talked about in the beginning, one of the things that GE did was basically make the year expire earlier, so instead of a year from today, when you've got refrigerators that are six years old instead of five years old, presumably more likely to have problems in your six than in year five; so, on the one hand, it fixed some immediate problems, but it presumably has some economics advantages to GE. MR. WALLER: Well, your Honor, in negotiating
this, GE thought about, well, we should have some cutoffs earlier than others, but GE decided we'll give everybody the benefit until January of '07 and that's what they did, regardless of the age. But that's -- from an administrative
standpoint, that's what GE decided, to give everybody the benefit until January of '07.
ARGUMENT BY MR.
WALLER
75
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25
THE COURT:
I still have a little problem with
giving someone a benefit but not telling him he's getting a benefit. I mean, I may have a benefit -- I mean, if I don't
know I have car insurance, and I get in an accident, it may make a difference whether I junk my car or have it fixed; and if no one tells me, oh, by the way, you're insured, maybe I've had that benefit all the time, and I just don't know it. MR. WALLER: Well, you've got to see whether or If you have an accident with
not you have a problem, too.
your car, you're going to have a problem, and you find out. If these people had a problem with their refrigerator, they're going to find out, one way or the other; and if they don't know, if they don't know that they had any kind of coverage here, or warranty here, and they went out and paid somebody, they'll get reimbursed. program. THE COURT: MR. WALLER: to file a claim. How do they get reimbursed? They file a claim. They've got time That's part of the
They file a claim by September 4th. And they'll get reimbursed.
That's all they have to do. THE COURT:
So, basically, for the supplemental
claim people, your position is the 90 days, roughly, notice is sufficient. MR. WALLER: They had the same 90 days as the
ARGUMENT BY MR.
WALLER
76
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25
original class to file a claim.
The original class, notices
began to go out in January of '06, and the original people had 90 days to file a claim. With the supplemental notice
people, the notice went out in June, and they had 90 days, to September 4th, to file their claim for reimbursement. THE COURT: same. So, in that sense, the timing is the
They're in the same boat. MR. WALLER: THE COURT: MR. WALLER: THE COURT: Yes, sir. From your perspective. Yes, sir. All right. I had cut you off with
regard to the requirements for filing a claim, I think is where you're going. MR. WALLER: And again, it's part of the same
argument, Your Honor, that, again, GE negotiated, for internal reasons, it needed to know -- and Mr. Mason touched on this -- it needed to know how many of these people were going to be file for these warranty claims, and how many of these warranty claims were going to be out there. And
beyond that, Your Honor, it's not unusual -- and Your Honor knows this -- it's not unusual, in a class action, to require the filing of a claim to get a benefit. nothing unusual about that. Now Mr. Weinstein, maybe, in his case, for whatever reason, they were able to give a benefit to There's
ARGUMENT BY MR.
WALLER
77
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25
everybody.
That's fine.
But here . . . two things.
One,
GE does not know that -- the argument has been made that GE knows the identity of everybody that has one of these units and that's just not correct. GE does not know the name. We
don't know, for example, whether or not somebody bought the unit and may no longer have it. We also don't know whether We assume that, a lot of
people are having problems or not.
units out there, nobody has a -- they're not having problems, based on the fact of the number of claims that have been filed. But for that, and those reasons, but
primarily because of the reason that GE, internally, has a right to know, and negotiated, basically, and agreed that, based on the fact that we had a right to know who's going to be filing claims for warranties, these additional warranty protections, how many they're going to be -- you know -- for internal economic reasons, at GE. what we agreed to. And that's fundamentally
And again, Mr. Weinstein has an
argument, but . . . nothing in the law requires the agreement to be rewritten in some other way than was negotiated. And there's nothing unfair about it. notice. People got
They have the right to file, just like his client He's got time to file a
has the right to file, a claim. claim.
If he chooses not to file a claim, that's up to him.
All he has to do is file a claim to get that benefit.
ARGUMENT BY MR.
WALLER
78
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25
Your Honor, there's just one other point -- I hate to even bring it up, but I'd like to just mention, just to set the record straight, Mr. Weinstein made a flip remark -I don't think he was serious, but I want to make the record clear -- he made a remark, something to the effect that GE decided this should only go to people that make more than $50,000. anything. What I think he's alluding to is that GE, in deciding how to publish the ads, went to a third-party professional company -- marketing company, in New York, to see how do we reach the people out there who are the likely owners of these refrigerators? them? What's the best way to reach That's absolutely untrue, not supported by
And the information that came back was, well,
generally, the people who buy these units, generally, the majority of them are in an certain economic price range, and so we want to make sure that we reach -- particularly reach that economic price range. And so they decided to publish
in Parade twice, in USA Weekend once, Better Homes and Gardens, People, and Readers Digest. This third-party company advised GE that that's the publications that we ought to have to reach the majority of people who will -- are purchasers and owners of these units. But nobody ever said we're only going to publish or
notify people in a particular economic price range, and I
ARGUMENT BY MR.
WALLER
79
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25
want the record to be clear on that. Thank you. THE COURT: All right.
Mr. Weinstein, did you agree with the hypothetical answers that Mr. Weinstein was giving as he spoke up here a few minutes ago? MR. SCOTT WEINSTEIN: Not all of them. GE is
contractually obligated to this case, to give us immediate implementation, since January. That's what the contract --
that's what the settlement agreement says that they would do. That's what we negotiated. That's what they have been
doing.
Their obligations, I believe, would end if Your I think they
Honor would deny our pending motion today.
wouldn't have to do anything anymore, because it cuts off the agreement. The agreement was that, up until the Court enters an order, if the Court does enter an order, they will provide this immediate benefit. They have had no
obligation . . . under two scenarios; one, if the Court denies the motion; or two, if, as has been mentioned, or threatened, by Mr. Weinstein, who said that he cares about members of the class, if he cuts off those rights -- the rights only flow from the settlement agreement. no rights. There are
Statutes of limitations have run out, in most
states, with refrigerators this old, and nobody has a right
80
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25
to a restored warranty once it's expired.
They have the
rights only under this agreement, not absent this agreement. Assuming the other hypothetical, Your Honor can remind me about what you're curious about, about my hypothetical answer, I'll be happy to answer. THE COURT: I saw you nodding your head in some
places and shaking your head in some places. MR. SCOTT WEINSTEIN: Exactly. I will disagree They
that there is no obligation to provide these benefits.
have a contractual obligation to provide those benefits. The settlement says that it will commence, that's why I kept reading from it, commencing January 13th, of 2006. the contract they have with us in this agreement. I'm sorry? MR. JEFFREY WEINSTEIN: Honor? THE COURT: You may. May it please the Court, If I may approach, Your That's And --
my hypothetical -- let's assume my client was not identified by GE, and he makes a warranty claim for covered moisture problems on November 15, 2006, and the settlement is final. I ask if you could assume that, and I know that you can. Under the settlement, that would be within the extended warranty period; correct? MR. SCOTT WEINSTEIN: Correct.
MR. JEFFREY WEINSTEIN QUESTIONS MR. SCOTT WEINSTEIN
81
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 correct.
So this would be the very
alleged benefit that the settlement was intended to provide to him. MR. SCOTT WEINSTEIN: That's one of many benefits If he had a problem, in
that he has under the agreement.
November, with the refrigerator, he would be able to make a warranty claim. MR. JEFFREY WEINSTEIN: The answer is that it was
And me may get a
reimbursement if he ever had a problem before, and he would eventually get a new refrigerator if it couldn't be fixed. MR. JEFFREY WEINSTEIN: And, when he made the
claim, GE could ask the exact same questions contained in the claim form to ensure that he's a member of the class. MR. SCOTT WEINSTEIN: When he makes the claim? They would have I
think they would have already done that. sent out a warranty letter.
They could have sent out a
letter, and he's going to have it. MR. JEFFREY WEINSTEIN: that he's a member of the class. MR. SCOTT WEINSTEIN: They would do that three And they would determine
months ago, when he got the claim form and notice, he could have sent it with proof, and it already would have been done.
82
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 question.
MR. JEFFREY WEINSTEIN: I think the answer is correct. MR. SCOTT WEINSTEIN:
It's appears painful, but
I don't understand your
MR. JEFFREY WEINSTEIN: MR. SCOTT WEINSTEIN:
Oh, sure.
If he sends in the claim If he has
form timely, he doesn't have to do anything more.
a problem with the refrigerator, just call them up for service. MR. JEFFREY WEINSTEIN: GE would determine that he
was a member of the class, correct? MR. SCOTT WEINSTEIN: When? At the time that he makes
MR. JEFFREY WEINSTEIN: the claim. MR. SCOTT WEINSTEIN:
What claim? A moisture related
refrigerator claim that's the basis of our lawsuit, gentleman. MR. SCOTT WEINSTEIN: with me, counsel. not artful. Please don't be sarcastic It's
I don't understand your question.
Which claim? Gentlemen. There are two types of
THE COURT:
claims, Your Honor, you send in a claim form to become a member, and to ask for this additional warranty protection.
83
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25
Or, if you're eligible for reimbursement, there is a section for reimbursement. Or for the refrigerator exchange, if Then, if you have a problem with
you're already entitled.
your refrigerator, you can make a claim under the additional warranty protection that already would have been issued had you done the first claim. question. MR. JEFFREY WEINSTEIN: Let me just, if I could So I don't understand the
just back up for just a minute, and just maybe help it out. Remember that this person's making the claim on November the 15th, 2006. MR. SCOTT WEINSTEIN: Which claim? The moisture related
MR. JEFFREY WEINSTEIN: refrigerator claim. MR. SCOTT WEINSTEIN: claim form? MR. JEFFREY WEINSTEIN: MR. SCOTT WEINSTEIN:
Has he already sent it his
No.
Then it's cut off. He wasn't identified by
MR. JEFFREY WEINSTEIN: GE. MR. SCOTT WEINSTEIN:
It's cut off. All right. Under the
settlement, he wouldn't be entitled to any relief simply because he did not identify himself to GE earlier, before he had the moisture problem.
84
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25
No.
He refused to file a He got it in May, and
claim, even though he has a lawyer.
he decided to sit on his rights because he has no right absent this settlement agreement. MR. JEFFREY WEINSTEIN: That's my answer. Your Honor, it was a
hypothetical, didn't have to do with Mr. Davis, but I appreciate the responses. were asking about. That was the hypothetical you
I don't believe Mr. Weinstein was
responding to it earlier. THE COURT: that you need? MR. JEFFREY WEINSTEIN: Thank you very much. THE COURT: All right. MR. WALLER: I think you do, too. Anything else? From anyone? I believe so, Your Honor. All right. Do you have your answers
Your Honor, the only other thing --
and I'm not trying to beat a dead horse, but you're concerned about -- or expressed a concern about knowledge. And, to the extent that a person -- and maybe I didn't make it clear earlier. To the extent a person received notice in
January of '06, another class member didn't receive notice until March or April of '06, those people would have had different lengths of time between then and January of '07, but they're both treated the same. year. They both have that
And so there's no difference between --
85
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25
distinguishing between those two than distinguishing between a later supplemental notice person. at different time periods . . . . THE COURT: think you said. Maybe I misunderstood something I They still got notice,
I believe you had talked about, if someone
received notice in January of '06, he had roughly 90 days. MR. WALLER: That's a different question. I'm
talking about length of time they would have in which -that they would have knowledge in their head of this warranty period. Okay? And Your Honor seemed to be
concerned that some people would only have three months knowledge, or three months opportunity, to have this extended warranty period, whereas other people would have had a full year for the extended warranty period. And all I'm saying, as far as the -- you know, you could make the same argument with respect to two people, one who first got notice in April of '06, and another who got notice in January of '06. You could make the same argument,
that there is a difference in length of time that they had knowledge, between that time and January of '07, to exercise their rights under the warranty. makes any difference. The point is, they all have a year. They all Maybe But I don't know that it
have -- well, they all have until January of '07.
I've just obfuscated further, and I apologize if I did.
86
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25
Thank you. THE COURT: Your bottom line has to be -- and
correct me, because I don't mean to put words in your mouth. Although that's what I'm going to do. MR. WALLER: THE COURT: I'll accept them. It seems like your bottom line is 90
days is reasonable for someone to get notice and make a claim. MR. WALLER: THE COURT: have 90 days. That's correct. Because there are some people who only
Maybe others have more, but at least for the
supplemental people -MR. WALLER: They have the same 90 that the people
in the first group would have had. THE COURT: MR. WALLER: Now that's the part where you lose me. Well, it depends on when the people, And the bulk of
I guess, received their direct mail notice.
the people in the supplemental group, the bulk of the people, based on the affidavits, received their supplemental notice by June 29th of '06. So, starting June 6th -- I
think June 6th until June 29th, I think, was the mailing period, and when like 240-some thousand notices were sent out. And so the last one would have gone out June 29. So,
between -- so the latest one would have had between June 29 and September 4 in which to file their claim. In the first
87
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25
time around, the bulk of the notices went out in January, and up until maybe mid February of '06. Now, there were some notices that may have gone out after that, but the bulk went out in January -- late January, beginning of February. April 14th. April. And they had until
So they, again -- you know, February, March,
They, again, had roughly 90 days in which to file --
if anything, this later group, perhaps, had a longer time period, because we made sure that they had -- because the mailings got out quicker, is what happened in the second time around. And so more of them would have had a full 90
days than actually occurred the first time around. But, in any event, the plan was for people to have -- you know -- the beginning time -- well, let me start over. The Court, in both cases, entered an order requiring notice to begin on a particular date. so many notices that went out. at once. There are
You just can't dump them all But, in both
It takes time to send them out.
cases, the Court said they should start in the January time period. It was like January 6th, I think -- I'm sorry, This
January 13th, I think, is when they should start. time, they should start June the 6th.
And the bulk of
them went out -- it began when it was supposed to, and the bulk of them went out in the two or three weeks following
88
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25
those dates. And then the claim cutoff for the first group was April 14th; the second group, it was September 4th. roughly equivalent time periods for the bulk of the recipients of the direct mail notice to file their claims. The Court did not require additional publication notice, because she was very pleased with the way the publication notice had been done initially. THE COURT: So, essentially, the Court will have So
to find that roughly 70 days -- I mean June 29th of '06 to September 4th, '06 -- is a reasonable period of time to have notice before the claim period expires. MR. WALLER: That's correct. It's 70 to 90,
depending on whether you're the beginning of the mailing period or the end. THE COURT: Right. And you're saying that's
roughly comparable with the first group, from January through with the cutoff of April 14th. MR. WALLER: THE COURT: MR. MASON: Yes, sir. All right. Your Honor, if I may, from my
experiences, address the issue of class notice and the 90-day time periods. I have had a career's worth of experience in this area. And, first of all, I'll point out that we're dealing
89
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25
with a notice program unlike Western Union, where you're directly notifying the class members. There was a direct
financial relationship between Western Union and the class members. In this kind of settlement, which I've done many So it's
of, we're talking about indirect relationships.
very -- it's a greater challenge to notice a person when your chain of distribution is from a remote manufacturer to the consumer. So that's point number one.
90 days has been presumptively been found to be sufficient, for a notice program of this nature, time and time again. And I want to point out, Your Honor, it's not Arguably, a consumer
because the consumer needs 90 days.
needs an afternoon to read this document, fill in the claim form, mail it. The 90-day requirement is usually what courts approve because that's the time period that it takes to implement a notice program of this complexity. minimum. Sometimes it takes more. At a
But at the time -- as
Mr. Waller was pointing out, by the time you get your ads placed, you get your databases ready, you get your notice providers all geared up, and it starts to roll, and somebody may see an ad the first Sunday in Parade, somebody else might see it three months later, in People Magazine, or the Readers Digest they saw in the doctor's office. all okay. And that's
90
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 now.
The point is, is the overall program extensive enough that we've got the scope and reach to reach the bulk of the target audience? We're not going to reach everybody. But
Particularly in an indirect notice program like this. is it sufficiently fair, and is it the best notice practicable? And that's the standard and the rule the
Supreme Court talks about. here.
That's what we are talking about
We have done that, within the 90-day period, twice We did it for the first group, and then we did it,
again, for the second group, giving an additional benefit, perhaps, to the first group; but, either way you look at it, we have twice done notice that, I think, meets all the standards, and has gotten the best practical notice out to the class, and it's given people adequate time to get the claims forms back. And the real purpose of notice, Your Honor, is, ultimately, not only to get the claim forms in, but to give Your Honor the opportunity to hear from the class about what they think about the case, what they think about the settlement. So there's sufficient time that, if people
don't want to be part of this, they can get out of it; and if they want to bring objections to the Court, they can do so. I think that process has worked admirably here.
91
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25
We have had heard statistics that there have been several hundred opt outs. We have heard from the objectors here,
today, and we had the objectors last time; and I think the notice requirements have been amply met in this case, Your Honor. THE COURT: All right.
Mr. Weinstein, at the beginning, you had some questions. Have all those been answered? Yes, Your Honor. Thank
you very much for allowing me that opportunity. THE COURT: All right. You gentlemen are kind of
entertaining, so I'd let you do some more, if you wanted. MR. JEFFREY WEINSTEIN: As long as you don't lock
us in that room back there, that would be great. THE COURT: No. As long as you're all set. We already talked about our
MR. SCOTT WEINSTEIN: grandfathers. THE COURT:
All right. Your Honor, some other
MR. SCOTT WEINSTEIN: points.
The consumer had prior repairs through GE. though the claim form requires that they provide documentation.
Even
They contact me, and they say what do I do? I contact Mr. Bogard. They
I don't have documentation.
search their database, and they can see that the repairs
92
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25
have happened, they reimburse or replace the refrigerator. They do that with me or without me. We have been actively, hands-on, involved in this, and the implementation of this, every day. very few contacts since the supplemental. I've received And I did
something so I that I know if I'm being contacted by a supplemental notice recipient. We changed my e-mail address Only
on the notice, so that I know where it's coming from.
people that got that supplemental notice would send it to that particular e-mail address. less than I did originally. I have gotten a few, much
Because, by the way, we don't
know how many new, discreet people there are in the supplemental notice. in some other way. for all we know. And some of them asked me questions, well I didn't know about the additional warranty protection. do? it. Apply for it. Have you had a problem? What do I Apply for E-mailed They may have already gotten a notice
They may have gotten a duplicate notice,
No.
I already paid for service.
Get reimbursed.
me back, well, thank you. getting reimbursed.
This is fantastic.
They say I'm
I didn't file the complementary and
thank you e-mails that I could have, but the vast majority of people are just so relieved that we're finding help for them. This is about the most people that we can help,
93
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25
versus -- and let's go back to hypothetical questions. like somebody to ask, if Mr. Davis is here, how is your refrigerator? Do you have a problem with it?
I'd
Did you have
a problem between the January and the end of May, when you received your claim form and your notice, that you wish that you knew that you had this additional warranty protection? I think the answer -- I'm going to guess, now -- is, no, I didn't. I'm just worried about everybody else in the class.
I didn't have a problem. He's in no different position -- he's in a better position than most of people. anecdotally? And you know what, He's
This refrigerator is five years old.
probably not going to have a moisture related problem, because these problems manifest early in life. The people that I have spoken with have had the problem almost from the beginning, and are just frustrated. By the time they're five years old, they're going to have that problem. That's anecdotal, that's my testimony, but
it's something that I see, myself. Your Honor, is it necessary for to us provide any legal argument about attorney's fees? THE COURT: issue. No. It's all briefed.
No one has raised that as an
I can read what's been submitted. All right. MR. WALLER: Anything else from anyone? The only other thing, Miss Cannivet
94
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25
made some comments about the monitoring, and I don't know whether Your Honor wants to hear a response to that. THE COURT: MR. WALLER: That's an issue, so . . . . Only thing I would point out, Your
Honor -- and Mr. Weinstein is alluded to it, but, first of all, anybody who has a problem in not getting the relief they're supposed to get under the settlement agreement could opt out, first of all. There have been very few opt outs.
Second of all, probably most important, is the way that GE and Mr. Weinstein have been handling these, to our knowledge -- I can just represent to the Court that, to my knowledge -- and I sometimes relay the messages from Mr. Weinstein to Mr. Bogard, anybody who has called in, anybody who has had a problem, had a concern, had a question, has been taken of. Miss Cannivet may know of some
people who have problems that haven't gone to Mr. Weinstein, haven't gone to GE, who may just complain to Miss Cannivet. I don't know. But if they would go through the procedure of
notifying him, or notifying GE, the problems are getting resolved. Whether or not they are entitled to
reimbursement, or replacement of a refrigerator, those things are getting resolved. At the end of the day, Your Honor, there is, in the settlement agreement -- and it's Paragraph 14 of the settlement agreement -- it basically says, from this point
95
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25
forward, or whenever the Court, the parties have agreed the Court can appoint a special magistrate, and have agreed that special magistrate will resolve any disputes. Let's assume somebody called GE, and they said, well, look I've had three repairs, and GE said, well, no, you haven't, or I'm entitled to a refrigerator replacement, and GE says now, you're not, under the agreement, if there's a dispute, there's a mechanism, under the agreement, to resolve that dispute. So to say that there is inadequate monitoring, or quality monitoring, I just haven't seen it, Your Honor. I
just don't think it exists, except out there where people are not availing themselves of their rights to contact Mr. Weinstein, or contact GE, and have their problems resolved. THE COURT: But the bottom line is, to the extent
that class members are dissatisfied with the resolution that GE provides, they have a right to . . . access to court? MR. WALLER: THE COURT: MR. WALLER: THE COURT: MR. WALLER: THE COURT: Exactly. And have a special master -Yes, sir. -- review the matter? Yes, sir. All right. Your Honor, may I?
CATHERINE CANNIVET:
96
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25
THE COURT:
You may.
If you come forward. Not one consumer that I've
CATHERINE CANNIVET:
communicated with even is aware of what that means, or that they have that right to -- to a special master, or to go to a court, or what they do once they've been denied. There
are so many people that are submitting claims, their date to opt out has already expired, they are waiting weeks for a reply, and then they get denied their benefits. it's too late to opt out. holding the bag. There are people, currently, most recent, over the last two weeks, when they call the regular GE phone number for repair service, they are a member of the class, but they don't know it, they did not receive notice, maybe they never had a repair, and they are not in a data base -- some of these people have had repairs through authorized GE companies, like Sears, and didn't receive notice. These are They're stuck. By then,
They're left
people that are calling the regular GE number for a repair and they are not told, at that time, that their model is included in a settlement agreement or a class action. They
are being told it will be 49.95 for a service call, and parts and labor. And then they do some research, and they
happen to discover us, and they are furious, because GE is not telling them. There are -- the people that are trying to get
ARGUMENT BY MS. CANNIVET
97
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25
these benefits, if there's anything -- could I please try to stress to you, today, people are being denied benefits by the hoards. People that have had six, eight repairs. Most
of them may be in GE's records. while under warranty.
Maybe they were all done They try to submit a They have no
They call.
claim to get a replacement refrigerator.
record, because GE never left any record with these people. Even people that requested receipts, and requested records, were never left any paperwork to prove they had these repairs. Now you have someone that's endured numerous repairs, they are having problems again, and they want their refrigerator replacement, and GE is denying it. People that
have proof of their repairs more than three moisture related repairs, are being denied refrigerator replacements. But it is most disturbing to discover all of these people that constantly contact us, and they are absolutely furious because they -- they call GE for repair during the current time and they are not being told that they are included in a class action. This is wrong.
This is -- when I talk about a monitoring mechanism, I don't mean reports submitted by GE. be someone else. It has to
GE has demonstrated, from the very
beginning, throughout this entire process, constant deception to the consumers and the customers, and making
ARGUMENT BY MS. CANNIVET
98
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25
promises in the press, and then not providing them.
They
blatantly make promises, and then deny the very promises they promise in the press. It has created mayhem for people. Not to mention
the extended weeks that people are forced to wait for repair, or for parts to come in. for the members. It's a very bad situation
And that's all I'd like to say about that. All right. May I, Your Honor?
THE COURT:
MR. SCOTT WEINSTEIN: THE COURT: Yes.
MR. SCOTT WEINSTEIN: CATHERINE CANNIVET: MR. SCOTT WEINSTEIN:
They's no mayhem. Yes, there is. If she would forward, and
she has forwarded all these people, I will fix it. THE COURT: Wait a second.
Miss Cannivet, you need to address your comments to me, and not Mr. Weinstein. can have at it all you want. After the Court is over, you With conversation, I mean. I will fix it, and I have Consumers
MR. SCOTT WEINSTEIN: been fixing it. are frustrated. hours.
Sometimes things don't go well.
If they contact me, it's fixed within 24
I get feedback from these consumers.
On very few It
occasions, Miss Cannivet has forwarded information.
doesn't help for her to have a complaint hot line, and just
99
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25
let people get angrier and angrier, and spin around, and make smoke. Contact. That's my job in this case, and
that's what I'll continue to do until all these have been resolved. It doesn't help to bring these things to life. Every person I sent
Bring them to me, and I will fix them.
to Mr. Bogard, they have resolved that issue. THE COURT: All right. Speak now, or hold your peace.
Anybody else? All right. can. Thank you all.
I'll get the order out as soon as I
-- -- -- -- -- -- -- -(Thereupon, at 3:33 o'clock p.m., the above-entitled matter was concluded.) -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -CERTIFICATE I CERTIFY THAT THE FOREGOING TRANSCRIPT IS A TRUE AND ACCURATE TRANSCRIPT FROM THE ORIGINAL STENOGRAPHIC RECORD IN THE ABOVE-ENTITLED MATTER.
Dated this 25th day of September, 2006.
/s/ Jeffrey G. Thomas JEFFREY G. THOMAS, RPR

TURNER V GE Refrigerator Class Action

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

TURNER V GE Refrigerator Class Action

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT MIDDLE DISTRICT OF FLORIDA FORT MYERS DIVISION CASE NO.

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 FOR DEFENDANT: 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 REPORTED BY: 23 24 25 FOR PLAINTIFFS:

MR. BARNETT: MR. CHAIKIN: MR. WALLER:

in Tampa, representing GE.

MR. JEFFREY WEINSTEIN: for objector Brent Davis.

MR. KAYUSA: counsel for Mr. Davis. THE COURT:

Your Honor, Michael Kayusa, local

Thank you, all. We'll

MR. SCOTT WEINSTEIN:

through GE or a GE authorized service person, they were in

ARGUMENT BY MR. SCOTT WEINSTEIN

that original group of individual direct notice.

Mr. Turner, who is sitting

We have the actual magazines that notice was

We did not reach the point of

MR. SCOTT WEINSTEIN:

ARGUMENT BY MR. SCOTT WEINSTEIN

problems with their GE refrigerators.

ARGUMENT BY MR. SCOTT WEINSTEIN

the ability to determine what the scope of that was.

ARGUMENT BY MR. SCOTT WEINSTEIN

included those models.

ARGUMENT BY MR. SCOTT WEINSTEIN

everything we did complied with CAFA.

And one of the things

them what to do.

they had a problem.

ARGUMENT BY MR. SCOTT WEINSTEIN

had a claim form or not, whether they received notice or

If you've had three repairs, by anybody, by

one away, and they give you a comparable one.

And through this date, through this hearing, 13,423

ARGUMENT BY MR. SCOTT WEINSTEIN

Advertisements were placed in national magazines,

MR. SCOTT WEINSTEIN:

ARGUMENT BY MR. SCOTT WEINSTEIN

Magazine, and Readers Digest.

Summary notices of this

And, at the moment that these were published, I

the special web site.

With an average view of 4.15 minutes.

schedule before we got here, today.

ARGUMENT BY MR. SCOTT WEINSTEIN

those are duplicates or not. way to know.

come back to that call center.

ARGUMENT BY MR. SCOTT WEINSTEIN

I must mention that, as of the first

They were letters that we received, that were

And Mr. Weinstein has filed an objection on behalf of

objection before the original deadline.

not an objector, just wanted to address the Court.

ARGUMENT BY MR. SCOTT WEINSTEIN

before this hearing.

And I am prepared, Your Honor, to

first, before I hear your response. MR. SCOTT WEINSTEIN: Okay.

filed an extensive reply to it. timely, at all. THE COURT:

In the back of my mind, it seems to me

I thought the answer was no. I said I don't believe that

MR. SCOTT WEINSTEIN: she is.

And I still don't know if she is, but I've spoken

ARGUMENT BY MR. SCOTT WEINSTEIN

So what I said is I don't believe she has

ARGUMENT BY MR. SCOTT WEINSTEIN