Simerlein et al., v. Toyota Motor Corporation et al., Class Action Settlement Frequently Asked Questions

A Court authorized the Notice because you have a right to know about a proposed Settlement of a class action lawsuit and about all of your options and associated deadlines before the Court decides whether to give final approval to the Settlement.  The name of the lawsuit is Simerlein, et al., v. Toyota Motor Corporation, et al., Case No. 3:17-cv-01091-VAB (D. Conn.).  The defendants are Toyota Motor Corp., Toyota Motor North America, Inc., Toyota Motor Sales, U.S.A., Inc., Toyota Motor Engineering & Manufacturing North America, Inc., and Toyota Motor Manufacturing, Indiana, Inc. (“Toyota”).  The Notice explains the lawsuit, the Settlement, and your legal rights.  You are NOT being sued.  The Court still has to decide whether to finally approve the Settlement.  Please be patient and check this website regularly.  Please do not contact the Court. All questions should be directed to the Settlement Notice Administrator, identified below.

The class action lawsuit claims that the sliding doors in certain Sienna vehicles are defective.  The lawsuit pursues claims for violations of various state consumer protection statutes, among other claims.  You can read the class action complaint located in the Important Documents section of this website.  Toyota denies that it has violated any law, denies that it engaged in any wrongdoing, and denies that there is any defect with respect to the sliding doors in certain Toyota Sienna vehicles.  The parties agreed to resolve these matters before these issues were decided by the Court. 

This Settlement does not involve claims of personal injury, wrongful death, or actual physical property damage arising from an accident involving the Subject Vehicles.

Simerlein, et al. v. Toyota Motor Corporation, et al.

On June 30, 2017, plaintiff Ned Simerlein (“Simerlein”) filed a class action complaint against Toyota Motor Corporation, Toyota Motor North America, Inc., Toyota Motor Sales, U.S.A., Inc., Toyota Motor Engineering & Manufacturing North America, Inc., and Toyota Motor Manufacturing, Indiana, Inc. (the “Simerlein Defendants”) in the United States District Court for the District of Connecticut.  Simerlein et al., v. Toyota Motor Corporation et al., Case No. 3:17-cv-01091-VAB (D. Conn.).  Simerlein asserted class claims under Connecticut’s consumer protection statute (the Connecticut Unfair Trade Practices Act (“CUTPA”)) and the consumer protection statutes of various other states, express and implied warranty claims, a claim under the Magnuson-Moss Warranty Act on behalf of a proposed nationwide class, and unjust enrichment arising from the manufacture and sale of 2011-2017 Toyota Sienna minivans equipped with power sliding rear doors, which Simerlein alleged were defective.

On October 6, 2017, Simerlein, along with additional named plaintiffs James Eckhoff, Marciel Lopez, John F. Prendergast, and Craig Kaiser (together with Simerlein, the “Simerlein Plaintiffs”) filed an amended complaint asserting the state law claims of the additional plaintiffs and making additional allegations against the Simerlein Defendants.

On October 31, 2017, the Simerlein Defendants submitted an unopposed motion for an extension of time to respond to the amended complaint.  On November 1, 2017, the Court granted this motion and set December 4, 2017 as the deadline for the Simerlein Defendants to file their motion to dismiss the amended complaint, January 22, 2018 as the deadline for the Simerlein Plaintiffs to respond to the motion, and February 21, 2018 as the deadline for the Simerlein Defendants to file a reply.  The Court further ordered the parties to file a joint case management report, pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(f), no later than December 20, 2017.

On December 4, 2017, the Simerlein Defendants filed their motion to dismiss the amended complaint.

On December 20, 2017, as directed by the Court, the parties submitted their joint case management report.

On January 5, 2018, counsel for the parties appeared before the Court for a telephonic status conference pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 16.  On January 12, 2018, the Court issued a scheduling order that, among other things, set December 21, 2018 as the deadline for the completion of fact discovery, and August 2, 2019 as the deadline for the completion of all briefing and expert discovery in connection with Plaintiffs’ intended class certification motion.

On January 22, 2018, the Simerlein Plaintiffs filed their opposition to the motion to dismiss the amended complaint, and, on February 21, 2018, the Simerlein Defendants filed their reply in further support of their motion.

On February 27, 2018, the Simerlein Plaintiffs filed a motion to strike portions of the Simerlein Defendants’ reply, or, in the alternative, for leave to file a sur-reply memorandum.  The Simerlein Defendants filed an opposition to this motion on February 28, 2018.  On August 1, 2018, the Court granted the Simerlein Plaintiffs’ motion to file a sur-reply and directed the Simerlein Plaintiffs to file their sur-reply memorandum, which was done that same day.  The motion to dismiss is fully briefed.

On August 24, 2018, the Court continued the hearing on the motion to dismiss to September 27, 2018.

On September 25, 2018, the Court granted the parties’ request to adjourn the argument on the motion to dismiss and set a telephonic status conference for November 15, 2018. 

On November 7, 2018, the Court granted the parties’ joint motion to reschedule the telephonic status conference to December 12, 2018. 

In crafting their pleadings and responding to the Simerlein Defendants’ motion to dismiss, counsel for the Simerlein Plaintiffs conferred extensively with their independent automotive engineering consultant.

The Simerlein Defendants have provided confirmatory and informal discovery consisting of over 100,000 pages of internal Toyota documents.  In addition, Class Counsel interviewed a Toyota engineer who is knowledgeable about the Sienna vehicles and parts at issue as part of confirmatory and informal discovery.

On December 7, 2018, Class Counsel filed a Second Amended Class Action Complaint in this Court. In the new complaint, plaintiffs added the 2018 model year to the Sienna vehicles at issue.

Combs/Franklin, et al. v. Toyota Motor Corporation, et al.

On June 23, 2017, plaintiffs Tonya Combs, James Tinney, Melissa Jugo Tinney, Crystal Gillespie, Melissa Stalker and Joseph C. Harp Jr. (collectively, the “Combs/Franklin Plaintiffs,” with the later additions noted below) filed a class action complaint against defendants Toyota Motor Corporation, Toyota Motor Sales, U.S.A., Inc., and Toyota Motor Engineering and Manufacturing North America, Inc. (the “Combs/Franklin Defendants”) in the United States District Court for the Central District of California.  Combs, et al. v. Toyota Motor Corporation, et al., Case No. 2:17-cv-04633-VAP-AFM (C.D. Cal.) (“Related Action”).  The Combs/Franklin Plaintiffs asserted class claims under various states’ consumer protection statutes, express and implied warranty claims, a claim under the Magnusson-Moss Warranty Act on behalf of a proposed nationwide class, fraudulent omission, and unjust enrichment arising from the manufacture and sale of 2011-2017 Toyota Sienna minivans equipped with power sliding rear doors, which the Combs/Franklin Plaintiffs alleged were defective.

On October 6, 2017, the Combs/Franklin Plaintiffs filed their first amended complaint which added Jennifer Franklin, Jordan Amrani, Dillen Steeby, and Paula McMillin as plaintiffs, asserted additional state law claims on their behalf, and included additional allegations against the Combs/Franklin Defendants.  On November 2, 2017, the court approved a stipulation setting December 4, 2017 as the deadline for the Combs/Franklin Defendants to respond to the first amended complaint.

On January 16, 2018, the Combs/Franklin Plaintiffs filed their second amended complaint naming Raymond and Rosario Alvarez, Karen Eason, and Jennifer Sowers as additional plaintiffs and  removing Tonya Combs as a plaintiff.  The second amended complaint asserted state law claims on behalf of the new plaintiffs and included additional allegations against the Combs/Franklin Defendants. 

On February 20, 2018, the Combs/Franklin Defendants filed a motion to dismiss the second amended complaint.  On April 20, 2018, the Combs/Franklin Plaintiffs filed their opposition to the motion, and, on May 25, 2018, the Combs/Franklin Defendants filed their reply in further support of the motion.  The motion to dismiss is fully briefed. 

On July 20, 2018, the court continued the hearing on the motion to dismiss to September 24, 2018.

On September 21, 2018, the court continued the hearing on the motion to dismiss to November 19, 2018.

On November 9, 2018, the court granted the parties’ stipulation to reschedule the hearing on the motion to dismiss to December 17, 2018. 

In crafting their pleadings, counsel for the Combs/Franklin Plaintiffs conferred extensively with their independent automotive engineering consultant.

The Combs/Franklin Defendants have provided informal discovery which, as discussed above, counsel for the Combs/Franklin Plaintiffs together with counsel with the Simerlein Plaintiffs have reviewed.

In a class action, people called “class representatives” sue on behalf of other people who have similar claims.  All of these people together are the “Class” or “Class Members” if the Court approves this procedure.  Once approved, the Court resolves the issues for all Class Members, except for those who exclude themselves from the Class.

Both sides in the lawsuit agreed to a Settlement to avoid the cost and risk of further litigation, including a potential trial, and so that the Class Members can get benefits, in exchange for releasing Toyota from liability.  The Settlement does not mean that Toyota broke any laws or did anything wrong, and the Court did not decide which side was right.  This Settlement has been preliminarily approved by the Court, which authorized the issuance of the Notice.  The Class Representatives and the lawyers representing them called Plaintiffs’ Counsel, including Class Counsel, believe that the Settlement is in the best interests of all Class Members.

The essential terms of the Settlement are summarized in th Notice.  The Settlement Agreement along with all exhibits and addenda sets forth in greater detail the rights and obligations of the parties.  If there is any conflict between this Notice and the Settlement Agreement, the Settlement Agreement governs.

You are part of the Settlement if you are a person, entity or organization who, at any time as of March 1, 2019, own or owned, purchase(d) or lease(d) Subject Vehicles distributed for sale or lease in any of the fifty States, the District of Columbia, Puerto Rico and all other United States territories and/or possessions. This is called the “Class.” 

Excluded from the Class are: (a) Toyota, its officers, directors and employees; its affiliates and affiliates’ officers, directors and employees; its distributors and distributors’ officers, directors and employees; and Toyota Dealers and Toyota Dealers’ officers and directors; (b) Plaintiffs’ Counsel; (c) judicial officers and their immediate family members and associated court staff assigned to this case; and (d) persons or entities who or which timely and properly exclude themselves from the Class as provided in the Settlement Agreement.

Yes.  The Court has appointed lawyers to represent you and other Class Members.  These lawyers are called “Class Counsel”:  W. Daniel “Dee” Miles III of Beasley Allen, Crow, Methvin, Portis & Miles, P.C., Adam Levitt of DiCello Levitt & Casey LLC, and Demet Basar of Wolf Haldenstein Adler Freeman & Herz LLP, are Class Counsel.  Their contact information is as follows:

If you want to be represented by another lawyer, you may hire one to appear in Court for you at your own expense.

Subject to the language two paragraphs above, if the Settlement is finally approved, for Class Members who still own or lease their Subject Vehicles, the Customer Confidence Program will be implemented.  The Customer Confidence Program will provide prospective coverage for repairs to the following sliding door parts but only those repairs that are related to internal functional concerns of the following parts that impede the closing and opening operations of the sliding door in manual and power modes:

(i) Sliding Door Cable Sub-Assembly for All Subject Vehicles:  The duration of prospective coverage for the sliding door cable sub-assembly will begin following the date of Final Order and Final Judgment and run for ten (10) years from the date of First Use of the Subject Vehicle.[1] 

(ii) Sliding Door Center Hinge Assembly for All Subject Vehicles:  The duration of prospective coverage for the sliding door center hinge assembly will begin following the date of Final Order and Final Judgment and run for ten (10) years from the date of First Use of the Subject Vehicle. 

(iii) Fuel Door Pin and Fuel Door Hinge for All Subject Vehicles:  The duration of prospective coverage for the fuel door pin and hinge will begin following the date of Final Order and Final Judgment and run for ten (10) years from the date of First Use of the Subject Vehicle. 

(iv) Sliding Door Front Lock Assembly:  For model year 2017–2018 Subject Vehicles and for certain model year 2016 Subject Vehicles to which the current Warranty Enhancement Program ZH4 does not apply, the duration of prospective coverage for the sliding door front lock assembly will begin following the date of Final Order and Final Judgment and run for ten (10) years from the date of First Use.  For model year 2011–2015 Subject Vehicles and for certain model year 2016 Subject Vehicles to which the Warranty Enhancement Program ZH4 applies, the current Warranty Enhancement Program ZH4, which is applicable for nine years from the Subject Vehicle’s date of First Use, will be extended by one additional year.

(v) Sliding Door Rear Lock Assembly:  For model year 2016–2018 Subject Vehicles and for certain model year 2015 Subject Vehicles to which the current Warranty Enhancement Program ZH5 does not apply, the duration of prospective coverage for the sliding door front lock assembly will begin following the date of Final Order and Final Judgment and run for ten (10) years from the date of First Use.  For model year 2011–2014 Subject Vehicles and for certain model year 2015 Subject Vehicles to which the Warranty Enhancement Program ZH5 applies, the current Warranty Enhancement Program ZH5, which is applicable for nine years from the Subject Vehicle’s date of First Use, will be extended by one additional year.

(vi) G04 Recall Remedy Kit for Model Year 2011–2016 Subject Vehicles:  The G04 Recall Remedy Kit is subject to a one-year replacement part warranty under the terms of the G04 Recall.  Pursuant to this Agreement’s Customer Confidence Program, this one-year warranty will be extended an additional one year – for a total of two years – from the date the G04 Recall Remedy was or is performed.  If the G04 Recall Remedy was performed more than one year prior to the date of entry of the Final Order and Final Judgment, then the Customer Confidence Program will provide an additional one year of coverage for the G04 Recall Remedy Kit from the date of entry of the Final Order and Final Judgment. 

Toyota shall provide a Loaner Vehicle, if requested, to eligible Class Members whose Subject Vehicles are undergoing a repair pursuant to the Customer Confidence Program. You are eligible to receive a Loaner Vehicle if your Subject Vehicle is undergoing a repair covered by the Customer Confidence Program that will exceed four hours to complete. In appropriate circumstances, where you have a demonstrated need for a Loaner Vehicle similar to the Subject Vehicle, Toyota, through its dealers, shall use good faith efforts to satisfy the request.

Pursuant to the Customer Confidence Program, if you have a concern about your Subject Vehicle’s sliding doors, you may have your Subject Vehicles’ sliding doors inspected by an authorized Toyota Dealer at no cost to you, pursuant to the terms of this paragraph.  Each Subject Vehicle is eligible for one such Sienna Sliding Door Functional Inspection within one year from the date of entry of the Final Order and Final Judgment.    Pursuant to this paragraph and upon a Class Member’s request to an authorized Toyota Dealer to inspect a Subject Vehicle’s sliding doors, the Toyota Dealer will inspect the Subject Vehicle’s sliding doors based on the following Inspection Protocol:

STEP 1. Using Techstream, perform a Health check. 

Are ANY current Diagnostic Trouble Codes (DTCs) for the power sliding door stored?

YES — Record stored DTCs, then continue to step 2.
NO — Continue to step 2.                                                            

STEP 2. Check the sliding door operation with power ON. 

Check to see if the sliding door can be fully opened and close.

YES — Then continue to step 3.
NO — Confirm the power slide door is getting power. Continue to step 3.

STEP 3. Check the sliding door operation with power OFF. Turn the power sliding door OFF by pushing the main switch.

a) Check to see if the sliding door can be fully opened and close.

YES — Proceed to step 3b.
NO — Inspect upper Fuel Lid hinge for separation. If separated, replace Fuel Lid, then continue to the next step.

b) Check the sliding door in manual operation by opening and closing the door repeatedly. Feel for indications of abnormal conditions (e.g., damaged slide door cable or seized PSD center hinge bushing).

Question 1: Is door difficult to slide open and closed?

YES — Inspect slide door cable assembly for damage or breakage. Also inspect or seized PSD center hinge bushing. Replace as needed.
NO — Continue to question 2.

Question 2: Are door latch functions inoperative when the door is at closing position?

YES — Then proceed to the Front. Lock Assembly and Striker Replacement procedure.
NO — Continue to step 4.  

STEP 4. Check the data list for half and full latch switch ON/OFF conditions using Techstream. Is switch operation abnormal? 

YES — Proceed to the Rear Lock Assembly Replacement procedure.
NO — Confirm to step 5.

STEP 5. Using Techstream, perform a final Health Check.

This Notice summarizes the proposed Settlement.  More details are in the Settlement Agreement.  You can get a copy of the Settlement Agreement and other information about the Settlement and the Claim Form on this website.  You can also call the toll-free number, 1-833-305-3915 or write the Settlement Notice Administrator at Simerlein, et al., v. Toyota Motor Corporation, et al., (C.D. Cal.), c/o Toyota Settlement Notice Administrator, PO Box 230, Philadelphia, PA 19105-0230.  You can also look at the documents filed in the lawsuit at the Court on the Important Documents section on this website.