Toyota Class Actions

POSTED DECEMBER 14, 2011
Class Action Trial Schedule Set
The Court has recently established a schedule for the Class Action trial in this matter. The trial will take place on July 31, 2013. The legal proceedings leading up to the trial on set forth on this Court Order.

POSTED NOVEMBER 11, 2011
WSBC Continues to Actively Represent Plaintiffs Against Toyota
On May 4, 2011, Judge Selna, presiding over the In re Toyota Motor Corp. Unintended Acceleration Marketing, Sales, Practices, and Products Liability Litigation in the Central District of California, appointed W.B. Markovits of Waite, Schneider, Bayless & Chesley, Co., LPA (“WSBC”) to continue representing plaintiffs against Toyota. Along with Mr. Markovits, WSBC’s team of attorneys have continued to actively represent WSBC’s 250+ plaintiffs. Over the past nine months, WSBC’s attorneys have reviewed documents, prepared two plaintiffs for depositions in Cincinnati, OH, continued to submit information on behalf of WSBC’s clients through the discovery process (discovery is the process by which the parties gather and exchange information relevant to the lawsuit), continued to work with the other members of Plaintiffs’ Liaison Committee for Personal Injury/Wrongful Death Cases and Plaintiffs’ Lead Counsel Committee for Economic Loss Class Actions, and continued to update WSBC’s clients on the status of the litigation.

On September 28, 2011, WSBC also successfully survived two motions to dismiss filed by Toyota. Toyota filed two motions to dismiss seeking to eliminate all or some of WSBC's plaintiffs' claims resulting from unintended acceleration accidents in two Lexus ES 350 vehicles. Judge Selna found that WSBC's plaintiffs properly alleged: (1) a manufacturing defect; (2) a design defect; (3) failure to warn of the defects; and (4) Toyota’s failure follow its own representations; and permitted WSBC to pursue both cases against Toyota.

POSTED JULY 19, 2011
Lawsuit Against Toyota Continues to Move Forward
On May 16, 2011, the Court ruled that Plaintiffs could continue pursuing their claims against Toyota relating to unintended acceleration in Toyota-manufactured vehicles. Specifically, the Court determined that Plaintiffs’ attorneys have offered sufficient evidence to establish Plaintiffs have overpaid for their Toyota-manufactured vehicles.

Currently, Plaintiffs are proceeding with Phase III of the discovery process, which will end on September 7, 2012. As noted in our January 28, 2011, Update Letter, discovery is the time period which the Plaintiffs and Defendants undertake fact gathering and exchange information. The exchange of information occurs through the parties’ providing documents to each other, answering questions from the opposing party, and conducting depositions (a deposition is sworn testimony provided through questions posed in front of a court reporter taken outside the bounds of the courtroom). Plaintiffs’ attorneys recently received a large amount of Toyota documents through the discovery process and will review these documents over the next several months.

Expert Discovery and Vehicle Inspections
During Phase III of the discovery process, expert discovery also will be conducted. Experts are those persons who are retained to offer consultation and opinions regarding liability and causation and who are qualified to provide these services by virtue of their background, education, and experience. Expert discovery is scheduled to begin in late 2011 and last until the end of August 2012. Vehicle inspections are expected to be performed during the expert discovery period.

First Toyota Trial
The Court has also selected the first bellwether case to go to trial in the first quarter of 2013. A bellwether case is used as a measuring stick for how the other cases in this litigation might proceed and for the value of potential settlements. The Court selected a personal injury/wrongful death case as its bellwether selection. The Court will continue to hear arguments and allow the parties to pursue discovery on Plaintiffs’ class action claims relating to economic loss Plaintiffs suffered as a result of Toyota’s concealment of its sudden acceleration problems.

Waite, Schneider, Bayless & Chesley’s Representation of the Toyota Clients
In April 2011, Judge Selna accepted reapplications for Plaintiffs’ Lead Counsel and Lead Counsel Committees. On May 15, 2011, Judge Selna confirmed his selections for reappointment and appointed W.B. (“Bill”) Markovits of Waite, Schneider, Bayless & Chesley (“WSBC”) to Plaintiffs’ Lead Counsel Committee for Economic Loss Class Actions. Mr. Markovits, along with the 16 other attorneys and support staff at WSBC and all other member of Plaintiffs’ Lead Counsel, will continue to zealously represent Plaintiffs’ interests against Toyota in this litigation.

Please contact attorney Terry Coates at (513) 621-0267 if you have any questions about the case.

POSTED JANUARY 31, 2011
Plaintiffs Make Steady Progress in Multi District Litigation Against Toyota
Plaintiffs have made steady progress in their Multi District Litigation against Toyota based on Toyota sudden acceleration problems. On October 27, 2010, Plaintiffs filed a lengthy consolidated Complaint. The Complaint presented new claims alleging that Toyota secretly purchased vehicles with acceleration defects from consumers and compelled owners to sign strict confidentiality agreements preventing them from discussing their experiences. The Complaint alleged that Toyota instructed its employees on ways to keep internal communications about unintended acceleration from damaging the company.

On November 30, 2010, the Court issued an Order regarding Toyota’s motion to dismiss the case, holding that sufficient evidence exists to allow the lawsuit to continue. The Court stated, “If a defect causes SUA (sudden unintended acceleration) to manifest itself in a small percentage of Toyota vehicles, it makes sense that people would be less willing to buy or use those vehicles on the off-chance that they might experience the SUA defect."

On December 9, 2010, the Court denied Toyota’s motion to dismiss based on the statute of limitations, claiming this case is barred because it was filed too late. A statute of limitations sets for the maximum time period after an event for which legal proceedings must begin based upon the event. The Court held that Plaintiffs’ claims were brought within the time period of the applicable statute of limitations.

On January 10, 2011, Plaintiffs’ attorneys filed their Second Amended Master Consolidated Complaint, which is 745 pages long. Please contact WSBC if you wish a copy. Among other things, the Complaint cites more examples of SUA incidents and claims that Toyota hid these SUA incidents from NHTSA and the public.

The Court has divided the discovery process of the lawsuit into three phases. Discovery is the process by which the parties gather and exchange information relevant to the lawsuit. The exchange of information occurs through providing documents requested by the opposing party, answering questions from the opposing party, and conducting depositions (questioning witnesses under oath outside of the courtroom). The discovery process in this lawsuit began in June 2010. During Phase I Discovery, Plaintiffs’ attorneys reviewed documents produced by Toyota to various Congressional and Government entities, collected SUA information to produce to Toyota, and have taken depositions of a limited number of Toyota employees. During Phase II Discovery, Plaintiffs’ attorneys continue to collect SUA-related information from the Plaintiffs and will review a set of documents Toyota will produce to Plaintiffs pursuant to Plaintiffs’ requests. The lawsuit is currently in Phase II of Discovery. Phase II Discovery will end on April 30, 2011. Phase III Discovery will begin May 1, 2011. The Phase III Discovery Plan is due to be submitted to the Court by April 21, 2011. Automotive experts have yet to inspect the vehicles involved in this lawsuit. Vehicle inspections will be scheduled as discovery in the cases progresses.

POSTED NOVEMBER 17, 2010
Amended Master Consolidated Complaint Filed in U.S. District Court for Central District of California
On October 27, 2010, the Lead Counsel Committee for Economic Loss Claims in the Multidistrict Litigation (MDL) In re: Toyota Motor Corp. Unintended Acceleration Marketing, Sales Practices, and Products Liability Litigation, Case No. 8:10ML2151 JVS FMO, filed an Amended Master Consolidated Complaint in the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California. In addition to many of the claims already made in our class action complaints, the Amended Complaint includes claims that Toyota purposefully misled the public about the safety of its vehicles and that it was aware of its vehicles' propensity for sudden unintended acceleration (SUA). The Amended Complaint also lists specific examples indicating Toyota knew it had SUA problems in its vehicles, but failed to notify the public of any potential problems.

The 1,065-page Amended Complaint references internal Toyota documents describing thousands of reports of SUA. The Toyota documents indicate that Toyota tested its vehicles for SUA and reported the findings internally. The Amended Complaint refers to evidence that Toyota's technicians knew that Toyota vehicles had SUA problems and that Toyota dealerships reported that SUA was still present in vehicles after the vehicles were "repaired" pursuant to the accelerator pedal recall.

The Amended Complaint is filed on behalf of plaintiffs who currently own or have owned the following Toyota-manufactured vehicles containing an electronic throttle control system ("ETCS"):

Toyota Vehicles:

2001-2010 4Runner
2005-2010 Avalon
2002-2010 Camry
2007-2010 Camry HV
2003-2005 Celica (2ZZ-GE Engine)
2005-2010 Corolla (1ZZ-FE, 2AZ-FE, 2ZR-FE)
2007-2010 FJ Cruiser
2004-2010 Highlander
2006-2010 Highlander HV
1998-2010 Land Cruiser
2005-2010 Matrix (2AZ-FE, 2ZR-FE, 1ZZ-FE (Not 4WD))
2001-2010 Prius
2004-2010 Rav4
2001-2010 Sequoia
2004-2010 Sienna
2002-2008 Solara
2003-2004 Tacoma (5VZ-FE except Sport Model)
2005-2010 Tacoma
2000-2010 Tundra (not including the 2000-2002 with 5VZ-FE)
2009-2010 Venza
2004-2010 Yaris

Lexus Vehicles:
2002-2003 ES300
2004-2006 ES330
2007-2010 ES350
1998-2006 GS300
2007-2010 GS350
1998-2000 GS400
2001-2007 GS430
2007-2010 GS450h
2008-2010 GS460
2003-2009 GX470
2010 HS 250h
2008-2010 IS F
2006-2010 IS250
2010 IS250c
2001-2005 IS300
2006-2010 IS350
2010 IS350c
1999-2000 IS400
1998 LS400
2001-2006 LS430
2007-2010 LS460
2008-2010 LS600h
1998-2007 LX470
2008-2010 LX570
2004-2006 RX330
2007-2010 RX350
2006-2008 RX400h
2010 RX450h
1998-2000 SC300
1998-2000 SC400
2002-2010 SC430

Scion Vehicles:
2005-2010 Scion tC
2008-2010 Scion xB
2008-2010 Scion xD

The Amended Complaint limits the economic loss MDL litigation to class members who currently own or lease or have previously owned the above-listed Toyota, Lexus, and Scion vehicles. If your vehicle's make and model is not listed above, you are not included in the MDL economic loss class action case, and you will be contacted in the near future regarding your potential claims. Personal injury or wrongful death claims are not a part of the Amended Complaint. They will be handled on an individual, not class action, basis.

There have been recent Toyota recalls relating to vehicle problems not covered by this litigation. For example, on October 22, 2010, Toyota recalled 1.53 million vehicles because of a defect regarding brake fluid leaks in certain Avalons, Highlanders, and Lexus GS 300, IS 250, and IS 350 vehicles for the model years 2004 through 2006. Toyota's recent recalls are not involved in the claims made in the MDL litigation.

Waite, Schneider, Bayless & Chesley, Co., L.P.A., retained experts to inspect certain vehicles and vehicle engine computers that have experienced SUA. We noted in our July 26, 2010, Client Update Letter that the scheduling of vehicle inspections was underway. That process has been delayed by the entry of an inspection protocol by the MDL Judge, which requires us to retain additional experts and to reschedule the vehicle inspections. If you have not already been contacted, we will contact you if your car should be inspected.

POSTED JULY 26, 2010
US District Court Issues 3 Orders in Toyota MDL Case
Recently, the United States District Court, Central District of California, issued three orders relating to the Toyota MDL Litigation: (1) Order For Preservation Of Documents And Tangible Things; (2) Stipulated Protective Order; (3) Court Order No. 5: Phase I Discovery Plan.

Order For Preservation Of Documents And Tangible Things:
On July 16, 2010, the Court issued this Order to ensure that the parties to the lawsuit preserve all relevant evidence, documents, and tangible items. The Order also provides a Vehicle Inspection Protocol for the inspection of vehicles involved in this lawsuit. The Court divided the inspection process into two categories: 1) vehicles in the Toyota Defendants’ possession or control that have not been involved in an accident shall be inspected under Toyota Motor Sales’ established vehicle inspection protocol (attached as Exhibits A & B to the Court’s Order); 2) vehicles in the Toyota Defendants’ possession or control or in the Plaintiffs’ possession or control that have been involved in an accident should be preserved in their post-accident condition without modification and all parties may jointly inspect the vehicle according to an inspection protocol that the parties will agree to, and vehicles in the Plaintiffs’ possession that have already been inspected should be preserved without modification and all information generated from the inspection shall be preserved.

Click to view this order (PDF).

Please Note: WSBC is in the process of scheduling vehicle inspections for vehicles stored for that purpose. WSBC will contact you regarding when your car should be inspected.

Stipulated Protective Order:
On July 16, 2010, the Court issued a Stipulated Protective Order. A protective order safeguards confidential information produced or disclosed during the course of litigation. This Order explains the type of information that is considered to be confidential. This Order will ensure that any confidential information that we receive from our clients will be protected. Any confidential information that we disclose to the Defendants will be marked accordingly and will fall under this Protective Order and be kept confidential.

Click to view this order (PDF).

Court Order No. 5: Phase I Discovery Plan:
On July 20, 2010, the Court issued Court Order No. 5: Phase I Discovery Plan. The discovery phase of a lawsuit includes the exchange of evidence between the parties relating to the key issues in the case. The Phase I Discovery Plan establishes organizational structure of the discovery phase of litigation, including identification of parties and witnesses and the identity and type of relevant documents. Additionally, this Order sets the boundaries for the type of discovery permitted in the case and identifies specific deadlines for completing discovery.

WSBC is working with the other members of Plaintiffs’ Lead Counsel Committees to identify the information to be exchanged with the Defendants, the witnesses needed to prove Plaintiffs’ case, and the specific methods for obtaining information to help establish Plaintiffs’ case.

Click to view this order (PDF).

Currently, WSBC and the other members of the Toyota Lead Counsel Committees are compiling the consolidated complaint to file with the Court. In a civil lawsuit, a complaint is the initial document filed with the court in which the Plaintiffs state the facts and legal reasons supporting their claim against the Defendants. The consolidated complaint will include factual allegations and legal claims contained in the various class action complaints filed throughout the United States based on Toyota’s sudden acceleration and braking defects. Plaintiffs must file their consolidated complaint for the economic loss cases by August 2, 2010.

There are now 399 individuals who have contacted WSBC to represent them in the Toyota MDL litigation. Of these, 90 have been involved in accidents with Toyotas affected by sudden unintended acceleration, and 8 cases involve deaths.

POSTED JULY 12, 2010
Committee Is Compiling Consolidated Complaint for Economic Losses, Personal Injuries, and Deaths
Following Judge Selna’s Third Court Order, the Plaintiffs’ Lead Counsel Committee is compiling the consolidated complaint for economic losses and the consolidated complaint for personal injuries and deaths for filing with the United States District Court, Central District of California. The complaint is the document that is initially filed with the court where the Plaintiffs state their factual allegations and their legal claims against the Defendants. The consolidated complaint will include the primary allegations and legal claims contained in the various class-action complaints filed throughout the United States based on Toyota’s sudden acceleration problems, including the federal class action WSBC filed in the Eastern District of Kentucky and the Ohio class action filed in the Hamilton County, Ohio Common Pleas Court in Cincinnati, Ohio. The current deadline for consolidated complaints is August 2, 2010.

POSTED MAY 17, 2010
Stan Chesley appointed to multi district litigation lead counsel committee
On May 14, 2010, the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California appointed Stan Chesley of Waite, Schneider, Bayless & Chesley to the lead counsel committee for economic loss cases in the Toyota multi district litigation. The appointment was based on the long history of experience in complex and multi district litigation of both Mr. Chesley and Waite, Schneider, Bayless & Chesley. View Key Cases.

The Court organized the structure of plaintiffs' counsel into a lead counsel committee for economic loss cases, a liaison committee for personal injury/wrongful death cases, a core discovery committee, and liaison counsel to state cases and other types of federal cases. Of the 75 attorneys nationwide who applied for lead counsel positions, Mr. Chesley was one of 18 attorneys chosen.

The Court ruled that no conflict of interest exists where a law firm represents persons in both economic loss and in personal injury/wrongful death cases.

The Court scheduled a hearing for May 28, 2010, to address the entry of a scheduling order for pleadings, the entry of an evidence preservation order, and the timing of initial disclosures.

The Court scheduled a hearing for June 25, 2010, to address a comprehensive plan for all discovery, entry of a protective order, appointment of discovery masters, and coordination with state cases and other types of federal cases.

The Court established monthly status conferences and joint status reports. View the May 14, 2010, Court Order.

POSTED APRIL 20, 2010
Statement from U.S. Transportation Secretary Ray LaHood on Toyota's Agreement to Pay Maximum Civil Penalty
On April 19, 2010, U.S. Transportation Secretary Ray LaHood issued a statement regarding Toyota's agreement to pay the largest fine ever assessed against an automaker:

“By failing to report known safety problems as it is required to do under the law, Toyota put consumers at risk,” said Secretary LaHood. “I am pleased that Toyota has accepted responsibility for violating its legal obligations to report any defects promptly. We are continuing to investigate whether the company has lived up to all its disclosure obligations.”

The fine supports allegations in WSBC's class action complaints regarding fraudulent and misleading statements by Toyota. View the complete statement of Secretary LaHood.

POSTED APRIL 19, 2010
Judicial Panel Transferred All Federal Toyota Litigation to California Court
On April 9, 2010, the Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation transferred all federal litigation pending in the U.S. against Toyota entities regarding unintended acceleration to U.S. District Judge James V. Selna of the Central District of California in Santa Ana, California. The Transfer Order consolidated all lawsuits, including the Ohio class action filed by WSBC and the national class action filed by WSBC in the Eastern District of Kentucky, into one case entitled In RE: Toyota Motor Corp. Unintended Acceleration Marketing, Sales Practices, and Products Liability Litigation, Case No. 8:10ML2151 JVS FMO. View the Transfer Order.

On April 14, 2010, Judge Selna published an order describing the upcoming events in the Toyota MDL litigation. He scheduled an Initial Conference of all attorneys for May 13, 2010, in Santa Ana, California. The purpose of the conference is to arrange a process to move the case forward efficiently. Judge Selna ordered that a Preliminary Report be filed by April 30, 2010, which will include the proposed structure of attorneys representing plaintiffs, the definition of core discovery (documents and information sought from each side), a statement of the facts and key legal issues, and an update on the status of all filed cases. April 30, 2010, is the deadline for attorneys to apply for Lead Counsel or other management positions in the litigation. View the Initial Conference Order.

There are now 325 individuals who have contacted WSBC to represent them in the Toyota MDL litigation. Of these, 75 have been involved in accidents with Toyotas affected by sudden unintended acceleration.

POSTED MARCH 4, 2010
The Class Action Cases Filed By WSBC Will Be Transferred to Multi District Litigation
When a number of similar cases are filed in federal courts in different parts of the country, a party can request that all of the cases be transferred to a single federal court. The request is made to a group of seven federal judges called the Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation (the MDL Panel). The MDL Panel decides if the cases should be brought together into a single court, and, if so, to which court the cases should be sent. The MDL Panel will conduct a hearing in the MDL case entitled “IN RE: Toyota Motor Corp. Unintended Acceleration Products Liability Litigation” on March 25, 2010, in San Diego, California, to hear arguments as to which court the different parties believe the cases should be sent. WSBC has requested that the cases be sent either to the federal courts in Covington, Kentucky, or Louisville, Kentucky. On March 24, 2010, a seminar will be held in San Diego, California, for all attorneys who have Toyota cases in the MDL to explain the process and the claims being made. Stan Chesley of WSBC is a featured speaker at this seminar.


WSBC Moves For Injunctions Against Toyota
On February 2, 2010, WSBC obtained a Temporary Restraining Order on behalf of Ohio Toyota-manufactured vehicle owners against Toyota in the Hamilton County Court of Common Pleas in our case entitled Cox v. Toyota Motor Sales USA. The Order prevents Toyota’s concealment or destruction of any documents relating to its vehicles, including documents containing Toyota’s misrepresentations about the vehicles’ reliability and suitability to be used for their designed purpose. The Cox case was transferred to the federal court in Columbus, Ohio, within the Southern District of Ohio on February 26, 2010.

On February 22, 2010, WSBC filed a Motion For Preliminary Injunction in the Cox case to require Toyota to provide relief to car owners who are afraid to drive their vehicles. The motion requested that Toyota be prohibited from collecting lease or loan payments from the class members until their vehicle defects were completely repaired and that Toyota provide alternate vehicles to those class members who were afraid to drive their cars.

Read the February 22, 2010 motion.

On March 2, 2010, after obtaining evidence that Toyota was able to install a brake override system on recalled cars, but was not doing so, WSBC filed another injunction motion in the federal court in Columbus, Ohio. This motion asks the Court to require Toyota to live up to the commitment it made to the National Highway Transportation Safety Administration, to its regional offices, its dealers, and its customers, that it will install a brake override system on all recalled Toyota-manufactured vehicles. A brake override system is a safety mechanism that cuts engine power in the event that the accelerator pedal and the brake pedal are simultaneously engaged. This device will not prevent sudden acceleration, but will at least enable a driver to stop the vehicle. Despite Toyota’s explicit promises in November and December 2009, Toyota’s February 2010 Safety Recall Announcement did not provide for installing a brake override system. Instead, Toyota’s the recall merely shortens the accelerator pedal and inserts a shim into it – a “fix” Toyota’s top officials now admit will not protect the public from sudden unintended acceleration.

Read the March 2, 2010 Motion for Temporary Restraining Order or Preliminary Injunction.

These motions have not yet been scheduled for hearing.

POSTED FEBRUARY 25, 2010
In addition to numerous injuries and deaths caused by defects to Toyota-manufactured vehicles, such as Sudden Unintended Acceleration (SUA), Toyota owners and lessees have suffered significant economic losses, including the loss in value of their cars. This economic loss has created an additional hardship for Toyota customers in already difficult economic times. In response to the hundreds of contacts we have had from Toyota customers regarding their problems and fears of future accidents, WSBC filed two major lawsuits seeking compensation for injuries, deaths and economic losses as well as punitive damages to punish Toyota for its misrepresentations.

On February 2, 2010, WSBC filed an Ohio class action lawsuit on behalf of all Ohio residents who own or lease Toyota-manufactured vehicles. This case was filed in the Hamilton County Common Pleas Court in Cincinnati, Ohio. The lawsuit claims Toyota engaged in fraud, fraudulent concealment, fraud by omission, violation of Ohio’s Consumer Sales Practices Act, violation of Ohio’s Deceptive Trade Practices Act, unjust enrichment, negligence, strict product liability, breach of warranty, and breach of contract. WSBC immediately obtained a Court Order that prohibits Toyota’s concealment or destruction of records.

See the latest version of this Complaint.

See the Court's Temporary Restraining Order against Toyota.

On February 8, 2010, WSBC filed a national class action lawsuit in federal court in the Eastern District of Kentucky, where we believe all Toyota cases should be consolidated, on behalf of all U.S. residents who own or lease Toyota-manufactured vehicles. This case is the first in the U.S. to allege violation of the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organization Act, or “RICO,” which prohibits ongoing fraudulent activities. The case targets Toyota’s repeated efforts to deceive its customers – and even its own dealers – as to the cause of the defects in its vehicles. The case alleges that Toyota knew of these problems years before the recent recalls, yet continued to assure its dealers and the general public that its vehicles were perfectly safe. The lawsuit claims Toyota engaged in RICO involving mail and wire fraud, fraudulent concealment, consumer protection act violation, false advertising, breach of warranty, breach of contract, and strict product liability.
See the latest version of this Complaint.


Watch Videos
To learn more about this class action lawsuit, click to view these videos.


Cincinnati Attorney Stan Chesley Files Class Action Lawsuit For Toyota Owners (WKRC - Local 12 Cincinnati)


Commonly Asked Questions and Answers

What is a class action?
A class action is a procedural device that allows numerous individuals with claims that involve common legal or factual questions to proceed in a single action rather than filing hundreds of individual lawsuits. It also enables individuals who would not be able to afford to pursue an individual case to join together and bring a lawsuit. The class action procedure is permitted by court rules in every state and in the federal courts. In a class action, several individuals are named as Plaintiffs (also known as Class Representatives), to represent the entire class. These Class Representatives must make a commitment to put the interests of the class before their personal interests. A court must approve a class action by “certifying” it as such after a hearing. In this case, there are many benefits to the class action procedure. By acting as a group, the plaintiffs have far more power than if they sued individually.

Do I need to pay any money to join the class action?
No. In this class action litigation, plaintiffs’ attorneys are paid only if and when they achieve a monetary recovery for the class. At that time, the attorneys must apply to the Court for attorneys’ fees and costs. The Court must then approve the reasonableness of the fees before they are awarded.

What do I need to do to join the class?
You will be included in the class definition if you are an owner or lessee of a Toyota-manufactured vehicle that is determined to have the defects involved in these cases. In order to be represented by WSBC and receive periodic update letters, please fill out this form, if you have not already been interviewed via telephone, and mail it to the address below or call (513) 621-0267 and we will fill out the form with your guidance. Having a record of your participation will assist in getting you compensated. After we receive this form, we will provide you with more detailed information about the case and the Toyota repairs and will be able to answer any further questions you may have.

Toyota Litigation
Waite, Schneider, Bayless & Chesley Co. LPA
1513 Fourth & Vine Tower
One West Fourth St.
Cincinnati, OH 45202

Will I forfeit my individual claim by joining a class action?
To the contrary, the class action preserves your claim and the individual claims of all class members from the time the class action was filed in early February 2010.

Do I have to appear in court?
It is unlikely that class members will be required to appear in court. At the conclusion of the case, a document will have to be submitted verifying that you are entitled to compensation.

Information about Toyota recalls:
Sudden unintended acceleration
Floor mat recall
Prius brakes
Corolla steering problems

Which vehicle models have been recalled?

Vehicles Recalled (as of February 20, 2010):

Floor mat

What is Sudden Unintended Acceleration (SUA)?
Sudden Unintended Acceleration (SUA) in Toyota vehicles results from the accelerator pedal sticking in a depressed position or when the car accelerates without the driver pressing his/her foot on the accelerator pedal. This can create a dangerous situation for the vehicle’s driver and passenger in addition to anyone in proximity of the vehicle.

Should I allow Toyota to repair my vehicle according to the recalls?
Yes, you should allow Toyota to repair the vehicle. Please keep all records relating to the recall, and try to avoid signing any paper other than a statement that you left your car and you picked it up after the repair.

Will Toyota's recall repair fix the sudden acceleration problem?
Toyota officials testified before the United States Congress that they could not state that their recall repair of Toyota accelerators will actually fix the problem. A client who had the recall repair in February 2010 experienced two incidents of SUA after the car was repaired. The Director of the National HIghway Transportation Safety Administration testifed before Congress that he could not state that the Toyota-manufactured vehicles subject to recall are safe to drive. His agency has begun an investigation of Toyota electronic problems, which Toyota denies exist.

When will I receive information about having my accelerator pedal repaired?
Toyota said that it will soon send out certified recall letters, but it will likely take some time to receive these letters because there are several million customers involved. These letters are supposed to give specific details on the recall.

Do I need to keep any documents relating my Toyota vehicle?
Yes, you should be sure to keep all documentation that you receive from Toyota. Additionally, any documentation surrounding the vehicles should be kept. This includes all repair documentation, purchase information, and recall notifications. In the event that you are involved in an accident, be sure to obtain a police report if one is available.