`
`UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
`EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN
`SOUTHERN DIVISION
`
`
`
`
`AUTOMOTIVE
`RE
`IN
`ANTITRUST LITIGATION
`
`
`PARTS
`
`:
`:
`:
`:
`
`
`Master File No. 12-md-02311
`Honorable Sean F. Cox
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`THIS DOCUMENT RELATES TO:
`
`ALL END-PAYOR ACTIONS
`
`
`DECLARATION OF
`WILLIAM REISS IN
`OPPOSITION TO
`ENTERPRISE FLEET
`MANAGEMENT, INC.’S
`MOTION TO ENFORCE END
`PAYOR SETTLEMENTS AND
`STRIKE STIPULATION
`
`:
`:
`:
`:
`:
`:
`:
`:
`:
`:
`:
`
`DECLARATION OF WILLIAM REISS IN OPPOSITION TO
`ENTERPRISE FLEET MANAGEMENT, INC.’S MOTION TO ENFORCE
`END PAYOR SETTLEMENTS AND STRIKE STIPULATION
`
`I, William Reiss, hereby declare the following in accordance with the
`
`provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 1746:
`
`1.
`
`I am a partner at the law firm of Robins Kaplan LLP, Interim Co-Lead
`
`Counsel for the End-Payor Plaintiff Classes. I submit this declaration in support of
`
`End-Payor Plaintiffs’ Opposition to Enterprise Fleet Management, Inc.’s (“EFM’s”)
`
`Motion to Enforce End Payor Settlements and Strike Stipulation.
`
`
`
`1
`
`
`
`Case 2:12-md-02311-SFC-RSW ECF No. 2205-5, PageID.39978 Filed 04/25/22 Page 2 of 3
`
`2.
`
`The following facts are based on my personal knowledge and
`
`knowledge acquired in my role as Co-Lead Class Counsel in this litigation. If called
`
`upon as a witness, I could and would testify competently to them.
`
`3.
`
`I have also reviewed the Declarations of Emma K. Burton and Ryan C.
`
`Koenig filed in Support of EFM’s Motion to Enforce End Payor Settlements and
`
`Strike Contradictory and Improper Stipulation and take issue with their
`
`characterization of certain facts.
`
`4.
`
`I was involved in crafting and negotiating most of the settlement
`
`agreements at issue in this case. It was never the intent of the settling parties to
`
`include entities who purchase vehicles for the purpose of immediately re-leasing
`
`them in the settlement classes.
`
`5.
`
`Crowell first raised a question about FMCs in an email dated October
`
`17, 2019. On November 12, 2019, it filed an initial claim on behalf of EFM. Crowell
`
`later supplemented the EFM claim on March 16, 2020. A true and accurate copy of
`
`that supplement claim form is attached here as Exhibit D.
`
`6.
`
`EFM is the only FMC represented by Crowell. The March 16, 2020
`
`claim form is the only current claim form on file for EFM. To my knowledge, all of
`
`the vehicles claimed by EFM are subject to long-term lease agreements and none
`
`were claimed or purchased for EFM’s own use or account. Neither Crowell nor EFM
`
`have provided any evidence suggesting otherwise.
`
`
`
`2
`
`
`
`Case 2:12-md-02311-SFC-RSW ECF No. 2205-5, PageID.39979 Filed 04/25/22 Page 3 of 3
`
`7.
`
`In total, in the claim form attached as Exhibit D, EFM seeks to recover
`
`for 1,043,056 vehicles and 2,618,908 replacement parts.
`
`8.
`
`Both before and after filing EFM’s claim, Crowell filed a litany of
`
`claims on behalf of true end-payors, including many who on information and belief
`
`are EFM’s customers. Either way, these claims seek compensation for the same
`
`vehicles (by VIN) claimed by EFM.
`
`9.
`
`Once
`
`the extended claims-filing deadline passed,
`
`the Claims
`
`Administrator began the process of de-duplicating claims by VIN number. At that
`
`point, we discovered that of the 1,043,056 vehicles claimed by EFM, 503,316 of
`
`them—48.25%—were also claimed by another entity and most—more than 500,000
`
`of them—were claimed by another entity also represented by Crowell. In many
`
`cases, in fact, Crowell filed not one, not two, but three separate claims for a single
`
`vehicle.
`
`I declare under penalty of perjury, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1746, that the
`
`foregoing is true and correct.
`
`Executed this 25th day of April 2022, in New York, New York.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`/s/ William Reiss
`William Reiss
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`3
`
`
Accessing this document will incur an additional charge of $.
After purchase, you can access this document again without charge.
Accept $ Charge
Still Working On It
This document is taking longer than usual to download. This can happen if we need to contact the court directly to obtain the document and their servers are running slowly.
Give it another minute or two to complete, and then try the refresh button.
A few More Minutes ... Still Working
It can take up to 5 minutes for us to download a document if the court servers are running slowly.
Thank you for your continued patience.
This document could not be displayed.
We could not find this document within its docket. Please go back to the docket page and check the link. If that does not work, go back to the docket and refresh it to pull the newest information.
Your account does not support viewing this document.
You need a Paid Account to view this document. Click here to change your account type.
Your account does not support viewing this document.
Set your membership
status to view this document.
With a Docket Alarm membership, you'll
get a whole lot more, including:
- Up-to-date information for this case.
- Email alerts whenever there is an update.
- Full text search for other cases.
- Get email alerts whenever a new case matches your search.
One Moment Please
The filing “” is large (MB) and is being downloaded.
Please refresh this page in a few minutes to see if the filing has been downloaded. The filing will also be emailed to you when the download completes.
Your document is on its way!
If you do not receive the document in five minutes, contact support at support@docketalarm.com.
Sealed Document
We are unable to display this document, it may be under a court ordered seal.
If you have proper credentials to access the file, you may proceed directly to the court's system using your government issued username and password.
Access Government Site
