I OBJECT - to the IMS Settlement

[thom4782]

THANKS FOR POINTING OUT THAT 1 AND 3 WERE SIMILAR IN MY ORIGINAL POST. SEE CORRECTION BELOW

Today I filed my objection to the proposed IMS settlement. I did this because my 01S did not suffer IMS caused engine damage within the 10 year limit and the settlement provides no benefit to me. My grounds for objection, however, focused on concerns that affect many class members. They were:

1) CORRECTION -- Class members have a reasonable expectation that the Porsche IMS bearings would last the lifetime of their car engines. As such, the terms of the proposed settlement, specifically the 10 year limitation, fail to provide a fair remedy for those class who drive their Boxsters less than 10,000 per year on average.

2) The percentage reimbursement differentials treats unfairly class members whose cars did not come with a CPO but were still covered the Porsche warranty

3) The settlement fails to compensate all those class members who 1) knew of the IMS problem and its costly consequences and 2) proactively installed new aftermarket IMS bearings to substantially reduce the risk of an future IMS failure

If you have similar or different concerns, I would urge you to also object to the settlement. Opting out, which preserves the right to sue for damages individually, is of no benefit. The litigation costs would far exceed the price of installing a new engine. The court's address is:

Clerk of the Court
United States District Court for the Central District of California
312 North Spring Street
Los Angeles, CA 90012

[Foydawg]

Originally Posted by thom4782

THANKS FOR POINTING OUT THAT 1 AND 3 WERE SIMILAR IN MY ORIGINAL POST. SEE CORRECTION BELOW

Today I filed my objection to the proposed IMS settlement. I did this because my 01S did not suffer IMS caused engine damage within the 10 year limit and the settlement provides no benefit to me. My grounds for objection, however, focused on concerns that affect many class members. They were:

1) CORRECTION -- Class members have a reasonable expectation that the Porsche IMS bearings would last the lifetime of their car engines. As such, the terms of the proposed settlement, specifically the 10 year limitation, fail to provide a fair remedy for those class who drive their Boxsters less than 10,000 per year on average.

2) The percentage reimbursement differentials treats unfairly class members whose cars did not come with a CPO but were still covered the Porsche warranty

3) The settlement fails to compensate all those class members who 1) knew of the IMS problem and its costly consequences and 2) proactively installed new aftermarket IMS bearings to substantially reduce the risk of an future IMS failure

If you have similar or different concerns, I would urge you to also object to the settlement. Opting out, which preserves the right to sue for damages individually, is of no benefit. The litigation costs would far exceed the price of installing a new engine. The court's address is:

Clerk of the Court
United States District Court for the Central District of California
312 North Spring Street
Los Angeles, CA 90012

Would you go into more detail on how to file an objection? Mine failed just outside the 10-year limit with only 52000 miles on the clock.

[Johnny Danger]

I don't know what all this legal fuss is about ? Just contact Porsche like I did, and they'll send you a reimbursement check for the IMS retro-fit like they did me.

[thom4782]

To file an objection, you simply write a letter to the court using the address I provided. In the letter, you tell the court your reasons why it should reject the settlement. My letter was one page with 3 bullet point reasons.

PS: I also added the following reference at the top

RE: Objection to Proposed Class Action Settlement in the Matter of Eisen v. Porsche Cars North America, Inc.
CV11-09405 CAS (FFMx)

[Homeboy981]

Originally Posted by thom4782

THANKS FOR POINTING OUT THAT 1 AND 3 WERE SIMILAR IN MY ORIGINAL POST. SEE CORRECTION BELOW

Today I filed my objection to the proposed IMS settlement. I did this because my 01S did not suffer IMS caused engine damage within the 10 year limit and the settlement provides no benefit to me. My grounds for objection, however, focused on concerns that affect many class members. They were:

1) CORRECTION -- Class members have a reasonable expectation that the Porsche IMS bearings would last the lifetime of their car engines. As such, the terms of the proposed settlement, specifically the 10 year limitation, fail to provide a fair remedy for those class who drive their Boxsters less than 10,000 per year on average.

2) The percentage reimbursement differentials treats unfairly class members whose cars did not come with a CPO but were still covered the Porsche warranty

3) The settlement fails to compensate all those class members who 1) knew of the IMS problem and its costly consequences and 2) proactively installed new aftermarket IMS bearings to substantially reduce the risk of an future IMS failure

If you have similar or different concerns, I would urge you to also object to the settlement. Opting out, which preserves the right to sue for damages individually, is of no benefit. The litigation costs would far exceed the price of installing a new engine. The court's address is:

Clerk of the Court
United States District Court for the Central District of California
312 North Spring Street
Los Angeles, CA 90012

Since I am CURRENTLY suffering the dreaded failure. I would like to know what you wrote to the court so that I may file a similar petition.

Good idea BTW.