Rojas v. Bosch Solar Energy Corporation

Background

The parties agreed to resolve the action through a proposed nationwide class-action settlement. The court had preliminarily approved the settlement on September 21, 2022, and held a hearing on final approval on April 6, 2023.

The court stated that it had reviewed the motion, settlement agreement, declarations, exhibits, and presentations made at the hearing. It also stated that it had jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. §§ 1332(d)(2) and 1453.

Final Approval and Class Certification

The court granted final approval after finding that the settlement was fair, adequate, reasonable, and in the best interests of the settlement class. In evaluating the settlement, the court considered the strengths and weaknesses of the plaintiffs’ case, the expected expense and difficulty of further litigation, the risk of maintaining class-action status through trial, the relief provided, the informal discovery conducted, class counsel’s experience and views, and the class’s reaction.

The court also examined the settlement and negotiation history for possible collusion. It found that the settlement was not the product of collusion, citing the involvement of experienced counsel and neutral mediators, the benefits provided to class members, the separate payment of attorneys’ fees and expenses, and the fact that the parties addressed fees only after reaching agreement on the settlement’s substantive terms.

For settlement purposes only, the court found that the settlement class met the applicable requirements of Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23(a) and (b)(3). The class consists of all persons or entities in the United States who currently own Bosch c-Si M 60 NA30119 solar modules or currently own premises on which those modules are installed. The order excludes timely opt-outs, the defendants and specified related persons, settlement class counsel and immediate family members, and the assigned judge and immediate family members.

The court found that the notice to class members fully and accurately explained the material elements of the settlement and was the best notice practicable under the circumstances. It also found that the notice required by the Class Action Fairness Act was timely and properly served. No settlement class member requested exclusion or filed an objection.

Representatives, Counsel, and Administration

The court appointed Steve R. Rojas and Andrea N. Rojas as class representatives. It appointed the Birka-White Law Offices, Farella Braun + Martel LLP, and Levin Sedran & Berman, LLP as settlement class counsel. Richard Simmins of Analytics LLC was appointed as the third-party notice provider, and Bosch Tool Corporation was appointed as the third-party claims administrator.

The settlement provides for $1,400,000 in attorneys’ fees and reimbursement of expenses, along with a class-representative incentive award not exceeding $10,000, to be paid by Bosch Solar. The court stated that it would address those fee, expense, and incentive-award requests in a separate order.

Judgment, Releases, and Disposition

The final order requires the parties to carry out the settlement agreement. Once the settlement becomes effective, the released claims of the named plaintiffs and class members are released against the parties identified as releasees in the agreement. The judgment is binding on all settlement class members and has preclusive effect for the released claims.

The court dismissed the plaintiffs’ operative complaint and any related actions or lawsuits pending in the court with prejudice. The releases and final judgment do not cover personal-injury or fire-related property-damage claims, claims against persons or entities other than the released parties, or claims for breach of the settlement agreement or violation of the final judgment.

The court retained exclusive and continuing jurisdiction over the action, the parties, the settlement class, and the administration, interpretation, and enforcement of the settlement and final judgment. It granted the motion for final approval, entered final judgment for the entire action, and stated that the action was dismissed in its entirety on the merits and with prejudice, except for the separate fee, cost, and incentive-award provisions. This was a settlement-approval order rather than an opinion deciding liability after adjudicating the underlying claims.