EFTA01371357.pdf

Page 10 2016 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 97188, * individual circumstances on which those theories and claims are based; and the extent to which the proposed representative rum may face significant unique or atypical defenses to her claims." In re Schering Plough Corp. ERISA Litig., 589 F.3d 585, 597-98 (3d Cir. 2009). Plaintiffs' claims, "for settlement purposes only," are identical to the N14 Class claims. ECF No. 70 at 22. Plaintiffs represent that 101 Class Members assert that Defendants knowingly placed Class Vehicles containing the alleged defect into the stream of commerce and refused to honor its warranty obligations" and that "all Class Members assert the same or similar legal theories of liability against Defendants." Id. The Court finds that the typicality requirement is satisfied. 4. Adequacy of representation The Court must determine whether "the representative parties will fairly and adequately protect the interests of the class." Fed. R. Civ. P. 23(a)(4). The Court considers whether the Named Plaintiffs have "the ability and the incentive to represent the claims of the class vigorously, that [they have] obtained adequate counsel, and that there is no conflict between the [Named Plaintiffs'] claims and those asserted on behalf of the class." Hassine v. Jeffes, 846 F.2d 169, 179 (3d Cir. 1988). In this case, counsel is adequate. Plaintiffs claim that counsel are "exceedingly experienced and competent in complex litigation and have an established track record in litigating complex class action suits." risi ECF No. 70 at 22. As discussed, Plaintiffs' claims are also representative of those of all N14 Class members, and Plaintiffs "have no interests antagonistic to the class." Id. at 23. Though the Named Plaintiffs stand to recover payments of $4,000 each above the other consideration provided in the proposed settlement, thereby out-recovering other Class members, "this amount accords with the effort Plaintiff[ s have] taken to purse the class' claims." Weissman v. Gutworth, 2015 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 8543, 2015 WL 333465 at *4 (D.N.J. May 26, 2015) (Walls, J.). The Court finds that the adequacy requirement of Rule 23(a)(4) is satisfied. 5. Rule 23(b)(3) Rule 23(b)(3) includes two requirements: that "questions of law or fact common to class members predominate over any questions affecting only individual members, and that a class action is superior to other available methods for fairly and efficiently adjudicating the controversy." Fed. R. Civ. P. 23(b)(3). The "predominance" requirement demands that "proposed classes are sufficiently cohesive to warrant adjudication by representation." Amchem v. Windsor, 521 U.S. 591, 624, 117 S. Ct. 2231, 138 L. Ed. 2d 689 (1997). "[T]he focus of the predominance inquiry is on whether the defendant's conduct was common as to all of the class members, and whether all of the class members were harmed by the defendant's conduct." Sullivan v. DB Investments, Inc., 667 F.3d 273, 298 (3d Cir. 2011). As explained, Plaintiffs alleged in their motion for preliminary approval [*20] that Defendants installed the defective timing chain tensioner in all N14 Class Vehicles. ECF No. 70 at 21. Because the claims of each N14 Class member -- under federal and/or state law -- proceed from this common factual nucleus, all of the claims uniformly turn on "(a) whether Defendants knew or should have known that the Class Vehicles contained the For internal use only CONFIDENTIAL - PURSUANT TO FED. R. CRIM. P. 6(e) DB-SDNY-0064689 CONFIDENTIAL SDNY_GM_00210873 EFTA01371357