In Mora v. Harley-Davidson Credit Corp.,2012 WL 3245518 (E.D.Cal. 2012), Judge Ishii adopted the Magistrate’s ruling certifying an NOI class against HDCC, rejecting the argument that an arbitration clause contained in some but not all of the RISCs could defeat class certification. Magistrate McAuliffe’s full opinion which Judge Ishii reviewed can be found at Mora v. Harley-Davidson Credit Corp., 2012 WL 1189769 (E.D.Cal. 2012)
Harley’s objections are largely reiterations of the arguments made to the Magistrate Judge. Contrary to Harley’s objections, the Court agrees with the F & R that Plaintiff is an adequate class representative, and the Court does not find that the F & R failed to reflect the rigorous analysis required by Rule 23. Further, the Court does not find the fact that some class members may be subject to an arbitration agreement is grounds for rejecting the F & R—(1) it is unknown how many class members are subject to the agreement; (2) it is unknown whether Defendants will even attempt to enforce the arbitration provision; and (3) it is unknown why later orders/proceedings, such as creating sub-classes or excluding class members for example, would be impractical or improper. E.g. Coleman v. General Motors Acceptance Corp., 220 F.R.D. 64, 91 (M.D.Tenn.2004). As such, Harley’s first three objections are overruled. . . . ¶ Plaintiffs’ Motion for Class Certification is GRANTED; 3. The Court certifies the following Class: “All persons who purchased a motor vehicle in Cal-ifornia that was subject to California’s Rees– Lev-ering Automobile Sales Finance Act, Cal. Civil Code § 2981, et seq., whose vehicle was repossessed or voluntarily surrendered to Harley–Davidson Credit Corporation, or its agents, and to whom Harley–Davidson Credit Corporation sent a Notice of Intent to Dispose of Repossessed Collateral between August 19, 2004 and May 2011, and against whom Harley–Davidson Credit Corporation claimed a deficiency was owed.”