The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit affirmed a district court's approval of a class action settlement involving allegations that certain Hyundai and Kia vehicles were defectively designed and vulnerable to theft, according to a Jan. 8, 2026 decision.
The appeals court rejected challenges from objector Ruth Rubin, who appealed the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California's order granting final approval of the settlement between a consumer class and Hyundai Motor Company and Kia Corporation.
The three-judge panel consisting of Circuit Judges Kim McLane Wardlaw, Marsha Berzon, and Ronald Lee Gould heard oral arguments on Nov. 19, 2025, in Pasadena, California. District Judge James V. Selna presided over the original case in the Central District of California.
The settlement addresses a multidistrict litigation case that consolidated claims from consumers alleging their Hyundai and Kia vehicles contained design defects that made them particularly susceptible to theft. The specific nature of these alleged defects was not detailed in the appeals court's brief memorandum opinion.
Under federal court procedures, class action settlements must meet stringent standards before receiving judicial approval. Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23(e)(2) requires that settlements be "fair, reasonable, and adequate" to protect the interests of all class members.
The Ninth Circuit applied the "clear abuse of discretion" standard when reviewing the district court's approval of the pre-certification settlement. This deferential standard means the appeals court will only reverse if the trial court made a decision that was clearly unreasonable or based on an erroneous understanding of the law.
Citing precedent from *Roes, 1-2 v. SFBSC Mgmt., LLC* (9th Cir. 2019), the court noted that district courts must comprehensively explore all factors required under Rule 23(e)(2) and provide reasoned responses to all non-frivolous objections when evaluating proposed settlements.
The appeals court's decision emphasized that the district court had properly analyzed the settlement's fairness under the applicable legal standards. While the specific terms of the settlement were not disclosed in the available court documents, the approval suggests the agreement provided adequate compensation or relief to affected vehicle owners.
Ruth Rubin's objection to the settlement appears to have raised concerns about whether the proposed agreement adequately served the interests of the consumer class. However, the appeals court found that the district court had appropriately considered her objections and other factors in reaching its approval decision.
The case originated as multidistrict litigation, which is a federal procedure used to consolidate similar cases from different courts when they involve common questions of fact. This approach helps ensure consistent rulings and efficient case management when multiple plaintiffs file similar claims against the same defendants.
Hyundai Motor Company and Kia Corporation, both major automotive manufacturers, were named as defendants in the consolidated litigation. The companies are related entities, with Hyundai holding a significant ownership stake in Kia.
The vehicle theft vulnerability allegations reflect broader concerns about automotive security in an era of increasingly sophisticated theft techniques. Car manufacturers have faced growing scrutiny over security features as thieves have developed new methods to exploit potential weaknesses in vehicle design.
Class action settlements in the automotive industry often involve significant monetary compensation, vehicle repairs, extended warranties, or other remedial measures. The fact that the settlement received final approval suggests it met the court's standards for providing fair value to affected consumers.
The Ninth Circuit's decision is designated as a memorandum opinion that is "not appropriate for publication" and does not serve as binding precedent except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3. This designation is common for appeals that apply established legal principles to specific factual situations without breaking new legal ground.
The appeals court's jurisdiction to review the district court's settlement approval derives from 28 U.S.C. § 1291, which grants federal appeals courts authority to review final decisions of district courts.
With the Ninth Circuit's affirmation, the class action settlement can now proceed to implementation. Class members who are entitled to benefits under the settlement terms should receive information about how to claim their compensation or other relief.
The decision represents another example of federal courts' willingness to approve class action settlements that meet established fairness standards, even when individual objectors challenge the agreements. Courts generally defer to negotiated settlements that appear to provide reasonable value to class members while resolving disputes efficiently.
For Hyundai and Kia, the settlement's final approval brings closure to the consolidated litigation while avoiding the costs and uncertainties of proceeding to trial. For affected vehicle owners, the settlement provides a mechanism to obtain compensation or other relief for the alleged design defects that made their vehicles vulnerable to theft.