Friday, January 9, 2026
Page 1
Ninth Circuit:
Settlement of Class Action Against Hyundai, Kia Properly Approved by Central District Judge
Three Judge Panel Unpersuaded by Contentions of Two Objectors
By a MetNews Staff Writer
The Ninth U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals yesterday affirmed an order by the District Court for the Central District of California approving the settlement of a class action against carmakers Hyundai and Kia based on their vehicles not being equipped with a theft-deterring engine immobilizer, rejecting, in separate opinions, contentions of two objectors.
Payments to class members from a $145 million common fund have been held up pending a go-head from the Ninth Circuit. The appeals were heard before Circuit Judges Eric D. Miller and Kim Wardlaw and Senior Circuit Judge Marsha S. Berzon, who issued a memorandum opinion.
The Central District of California became the venue for the nationwide class action after the Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation on Dec. 13, 2022, ordered actions from 14 district courts consolidated and assigned there. Then-District Court Judge James Selna, now on senior status, presided.
Yesterday’s Ninth Circuit decision comes on the heels of last month’s settlement of a similar nationwide class action tried in Orange Superior Court. Under the settlement, announced Dec. 15, Hyundai and Kia will pay out $4.5 million, with the Office of California Attorney General receiving $612,570.14 and $10,000 going to the Orange County Auto Theft Task Force to pay for its investigation costs.
Objector’s Contentions
Objector Ruth Rubin contended that there were probably “hundreds of millions of dollars in damages that the settlement fails to address.”
She argued that class members who did not experience a theft or attempted theft of their vehicles are to receive “close to nothing” under the settlement.
The Ninth Circuit judges pointed out that most class members will be able to go to a Kia or Hyundai dealership and get a software update, along with reimbursement for loss of pay and childcare services while getting the upgrades and for the cost of fobs if needed in connection with the new features. Owners of cars that can’t be upgraded will receive up to $300 so enable them to purchase anti-theft systems, the judges noted.
They observed that the “possibility that a settlement could have yielded greater benefits for the class does not mean that it cannot survive scrutiny under Rule 23(e)(2)” of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. That rule sets forth criteria for deciding whether a proposed settlement is “fair, reasonable, and adequate.”
The judges wrote:
“The settlement is not inequitable simply because class members who experienced a qualifying theft or theft attempt are entitled to greater remedies than those who did not. Nothing in Rule 23 prohibits parties from tying distribution of settlement funds to class members’ actual harm, and it is equitable to provide greater compensation to the theft subclass because its members suffered greater harm than the non-theft subclass. The district court did not abuse its discretion in determining that the settlement’s remedies adequately and equitably compensate members of the non-theft subclass.”
Rubin asserted that “the value of her Kia Soul” decreased “at a faster rate than it would have absent the defect” but Selna found that “there is no evidence of diminished market value.” The Ninth Circuit judges said that Sela did not abuse his discretion “in determining that diminution-in-value damages were too speculative to award on a class-wide basis.”
Second Objector
Donald Kent Birner, an Illinois lawyer representing himself, also appealed Selna’s order. The judges said:
“The theme of his arguments is that the settlement amount is too low given the strength, in his estimation, of the class plaintiffs’ case against Kia and Hyundai.”
They declared that Selna “correctly concluded that Birner’s arguments were largely unsupported by the record,” adding that the jurist “correctly recognized that novel and untested aspects of plaintiffs’ theory justified the litigation discount and the caps placed on class members’ relief.”
There was no abuse of discretion, they found, in “concluding the settlement was fair, reasonable, and adequate.”
Plaintiffs’ Explanation
The plaintiffs, explaining the basis for the litigation, said in an appellate brief:
“Class Vehicles were sold with traditional ‘insert-and-turn’ key ignition systems, as opposed to ‘push-to-start’ ignitions, and do not contain engine immobilizers. Id., 1| 1291….Thieves can identify Hyundai and Kia vehicles that lack engine immobilizers by peering through vehicle windows and spotting traditional ignitions….Because there are no alarms on the back windows, thieves can enter the vehicles without setting off alarms and pull off steering wheel casings.”
The class plaintiffs scoffed:
“Rubin’s contention that the district court did not engage in an exacting and thorough review of the Settlement…does not withstand scrutiny. The district court took 15 months to evaluate the reasonableness of the Settlement, generating eight orders totaling 159 pages of text.”
The cases are Plaintiffs’ Consumer Class v. Hyundai Motor Company; Kia Corporation (Rubin), 24-7185, and Plaintiffs’ Consumer Class v. Hyundai Motor Company; Kia Corporation (Birner), 24-7080.
Copyright 2026, Metropolitan News Company