Thank you for taking an interest in the Don't Settle With Honda movement! The response has been overwhelming with literally hundreds and hundreds of angry Honda owners contacting me ,so please don't be offended if I can't respond to individual e-mails. I CAN'T PROVIDE LEGAL ADVICE, BUT I WILL SHARE MY STORY, AND I WILL SHARE HELPFUL LINKS AND I WILL PUBLISH ALL OF MY PLEADINGS AND EVIDENCE! Everyone who joins my mailing list will get notified as soon as I publish and will get regular updates on my case before then.
Warmest Regards,
Heather
CAUTION: IF YOU OWN A 2003-2009 CIVIC HYBRID YOUR RIGHTS ARE AFFECTED BY THE PROPOSED CLASS ACTION SETTLEMENT - CLICK HERE AND READ CAREFULLY BEFORE 2/11/12:
Nicholas E. Chimicles, Esq. (610) 642-8500
Nick_chimicles.com
Alison G. Gushue, Esq.
AlisonGabe_chimicles.com
CHIMICLES & TIKELLIS LLP
361 West Lancaster Avenue
Haverford, Pennsylvania 19041
866-399-2487
http://chimicles.com/
Jonathan W. Cuneo, Esq. 202-587-5065
jcuneo_cuneolaw.com
William H. Anderson, Esq. 202-587-5058
wanderson_cuneolaw.com
CUNEO GILBERT & LaDUCA LLP
507 C Street, N.E.
Washington, D.C. 20002
(202) 789-3960
http://www.cuneolaw.com/
Alan M. Mansfield, Esq.
alan_clgca.com
CONSUMER LAW GROUP OF CALIFORNIA
10200 Willow Creek Road, Suite 160
San Diego, California 92131
(619) 308-5034
http://www.clgca.com/the-firm/
James R. Hail, Esq.
jim_doylelowther.com
DOYLE LOWTHER LLP
10200 Willow Creek Road, Suite 150
(888) 933-5770
http://www.doylelowther.com/
Michael E. Lindsey, Esq.
info_lemonlawcenter.com
LAW OFFICES OF MICHAEL E. LINDSEY
LEMON LAW CENTER
4455 Morena Boulevard, Suite 207
San Diego, California 92117
(858) 270-7000
http://lemonlawcenter.com/
Disclaimer: this list is informational only and provided as a convenience. It is not legal advice. This site is not affilated with these authors, publishers or booksellers and prices and availablity may change. This site makes nothing from these referrals.
Heather agrees with Honda's statement that this case is "radical", she says: "This case is a radical departure from the norm of American Consumers rolling over and giving up when
facing big corporations!"
Media Contact:
Info_dontsettlewithhonda.com
International Coverage.docx
010812 Press Release.docx
122811 Press Release.docx
PETERS RESPONSE - "Honda Spokesman, Chris Martin, ignored all 20 of my e-mails. Honda ignored my offer to inspect my car before trial and lied to Court about it."
I did not contact Honda corporate prior to my letter dated November 18, 2011 because on numerous visits to Honda dealers I was told that Honda had a corporate policy of refusing to replace hybrid batteries until the dashboard warning light comes on. They advised me that Honda was well aware of the problem and had taken a hard line on the issue putting dealers who wanted to help their customers between a rock and a hard place.
The statement by Hondas Spokesman, Chris Martin, that " Honda immediately offered to inspect her vehicle and work with her on the findings, but those offers were rejected by Ms. Peters." is absolutely false. Honda received my letter on November 19 offering three settlement options and Honda did absolutely nothing. As of today, January 5th, no one from Honda corporate has ever contacted me. I have personally e-mailed Chris Martin 20 times, beginning on December 4th (a month before he issued this statement) and he has never responded to a single one of my e-mails. I have given him my home telephone number and neither he, nor anyone else at Honda corporate, has ever called.
I have received a single phone call concerning my case from the lead lawyer for Honda in the five pending class action cases - Mark Mester, the Global Chair of the Consumer Class Action Practice Group at Latham & Watkins in Chicago. He called me the first week in December and asked to have my car inspected by his litigation consultant, Neil Schmidt, but said that Mr. Schmidt was very busy and could not get to it until late February so he asked me to continue my trial.
I initially declined because I knew that he was just trying to delay my case beyond the February 11th deadline for other class members to opt out of the pending settlement. However, a couple of days later on December 12th, when Mr. Mester returned from vacation, I sent him the attached e-mail offering to make the car available at my dealership any time before our trial date, even though Honda was not entitled to discovery in small claims court (a point the judge agreed with when he later denied their motion to inspect). Mester responded by saying Honda had already made two motions in my case and Mr. Schmidt couldn't inspect my car before the trial (Honda lost both of those motions and three others).
Even though Honda repeatedly tried to continue my trial based on Mr. Schmidts unavailability, Mr. Schmidt miraculously appeared at trial on January 3rd. I guess he had some time available in his busy schedule after all! E-mail Chris Martin and let him know what you think: Chris_Martin_ahm.honda.com
HONDA'S OFFICIAL STATEMENT RE: PETERS CASE:
From: Chris_Martin_ahm.honda.com [mailto:Chris_Martin_ahm.honda.com]
Sent: Tuesday, January 03, 2012 09:21 PM
To: Chris_Martin_ahm.honda.com <Chris_Martin_ahm.honda.com>
Subject: Statement from American Honda Motor Co., Inc., regarding small claims trial in Torrance, CA 1/3/2012
You have been included on this email as an interested journalist regarding the small claims trial that occurred today in Torrance, CA. Please find our statement below regarding the case, which is still pending judgement from the commissioner.
Statement from American Honda Motor Co., Inc., regarding small claims trial in Torrance, CA 1/3/2012:
In the six years since Ms. Peters first purchased her vehicle in 2006, she never contacted Honda to complain or express any type of concern with her vehicles fuel economy until sending a letter in late November, 2011 and then filing suit shortly thereafter. Once the suit was filed, Honda immediately offered to inspect her vehicle and work with her on the findings, but those offers were rejected by Ms. Peters.
We do not believe Ms. Peters was deceived. The window sticker that was attached to her vehicle (as required by federal law) clearly indicated that her mileage would vary depending on driving conditions, options, vehicle condition and other factors. The evidence today demonstrated that the fuel estimates that were used for the Civic Hybrid were generated in strict compliance with federal regulations promulgated by the United States Environmental Protection Agency, and Honda used those estimates in all of its advertising as it was required to do by federal law.
Chris Martin
Honda Public Relations
American Honda Motor Co., Inc.
310-783-3164
SOMETIMES IT HELPS TO KNOW THAT YOU ARE NOT ALONE...
In fact, there are so many of us that
we crashed this page! Sorry!
New Comments Site & New Q&A Site - COMING SOON
The comments box below has been overwhelmed (apparently the template wasn't designed for such high volume.)
NO ONE IS OFFERING ANY LEGAL ADVICE HERE. HEATHER PETERS DOES NOT REVIEW OR APPROVE OF THE COMMENTS OR ANSWERS. READERS ASSUME ALL RISK WHEN RELYING ON THEM.
THIS CASE IS NOT ABOUT THE WINDOW STICKER! Honda has defended this case by presenting a giant blow-up of the window sticker (with small print that is still hard to read) and simply stating that Honda has no choice” but to use the EPA figures. “We have to put these numbers on the label,” argued technical specialist Neil Schmidt. "Not so, countered an EPA spokesman, who said that federal mileage testing provides only the maximum number a maker may quote. If a vehicle is more likely to deliver 35 in real-world conditions an automaker has the right to go with that figure, though sticking with an EPA-sanctioned 40 MPG is more likely to catch a consumer’s eye." As MSNBC has reported in Lies, Damned Lies and Fuel Economy Numbers . See also, 40 C.F.R. Sec. 600.210-08.
THIS CASE IS ABOUT HONDA'S SOFTWARE UPDATE THAT DECEPTIVELY REDUCED THE MPG IN 2010:
Even if Honda's advertising was totally honest at the point of sale (which it was not), last year Honda tricked Civic Hybrid owners into doing an irreversible software update. The letter said that the update would "help prevent early IMA battery deterioration". This sounded great, but Honda didn't tell us that it would do this by reprogramming the engine to use more gas and would drastically reduce MPG. Owners like Ms. Peters report that they get less than 30 MPG since the update, practically half the 50 MPG advertised. A Honda Certified Technician confirmed this at trial.
THIS CASE IS ALSO ABOUT HONDA'S LIES IN ITS BROCHURE. Among other things the brochure said the 2006 Civic Hybrid would use "amazingly little fuel" and would "save plenty of money on fuel - with up to 50 mpg during city driving." It quoted The EPA number of 50 MPG for both city and highway. It bragged about the hybrid system's performance as "adding extra power when needed, such as during acceleration. It works seamlessly and automatically, so it feels just like a normal, responsive Civic." "Just enjoy driving the Civic Hybrid like you would a conventional gasoline-engine vehicle." It "provides plenty of horsepower while still sipping fuel." Yet at trial, Honda defended the case by blaming the driver: "the biggest effect is how you drive" and emphasized that using the air conditioning in stop and go traffic will be a problem. Ms. Peters countered that if she had been told that she would not have paid a premium for hybrid that could never get 50 MPG in Los Angeles.
HONDA KNEW IT WAS FALSELY ADVERTISING THE HYBRID. Honda was actively engaged in the EPA's review of its MPG testing methods long before Ms. Peters was sold her hybrid. After a great deal of deliberation and interaction with car manufacturers the EPA issued a draft report in January of 2006 titled "Fuel Economy Labeling of Motor Vehicles: Revisions to Improve Calculation of Fuel Economy Estimates." This report detailed testing results for the Honda Civic Hybrid and found that real world MPG was significantly lower than the sticker and that the car was more sensitive to operating conditions than conventional vehicles "which can either take full advantage of the hybrid technology or essentially nullify it."
William Willen from Honda's Product Regulatory Office (the same guy who approves Honda's national advertising) wrote a letter dated April 3, 2006 to the EPA praising this report as a "credible analysis" and stating "Honda strongly supports the need for consumers to be provided with the most accurate information possible on fuel economy performance." Additionally, in 2005, a year before Ms. Peters was sold her Civic Hybrid Honda had already been sued for the exact same false advertising Paduano v. American Honda Motor Co., Inc. , a case that Honda later settled for $50,000, plus another $50,000 in attorneys' fees!
CD Includes the following for all 50 states + DC:
Heather's Demand Letter, Opt-Out, Pleadings, Evidence & Step by step story of her thinking, how she won & what she would have done differently
Honda's Motions, Defenses & Evidence
The following helpful tools:
EPA Documents re: MPG:
The 26 Page Judgment in Heather vs. Honda
BY CLICKING "“BUY NOW” " YOU ACKNOWLEDGE THAT THIS CD IS FOR INFORMATIONAL PURPOSES ONLY AND THAT YOU ARE NOT GETTING LEGAL ADVICE! THIS IS JUST ONE WOMAN'S CASE - YOUR FACTS, LAW AND ADMISSIBILTY OF EVIDENCE WILL VARY BY STATE AND JUDGE. THE CD COMES WITH NO WARRANTY. RESULTS ARE NOT GUARANTEED AND THERE ARE NO REFUNDS. YOU ARE RESPONSIBLE FOR RESEARCHING YOUR OWN CLAIMS AND ASSUME THE RISK OF ANY ERRORS.
* Some info can be copied at the court (50¢/pg.), some is free on the net, but much was the result of countless hours of Heathers legwork - a bargain at $15 (but remember this is not legal advice and there are no guarantees).
