Marek v. Lane
An opinion by Chief Justice John Roberts expressed concerns over the practice of cy pres, acknowledging the need for the Supreme Court to address the issue in a future case.
HP Inkjet Printer Litigation
The Ninth Circuit held that the Class Action Fairness Act requires that when class members obtain coupons in a settlement, the lawyers’ fees attributable to those coupons must themselves be based on the value of coupons that are redeemed.
In re: Classmates.com Consolidated Litigation
The Center’s client objected to a settlement over deceptive advertising that promised over $1M to plaintiffs’ lawyers and about $100,000 to the class. The court upheld the objection, eventually reducing the plaintiffs’ lawyers’ fees and sanctioning them for abusive litigation tactics.
Nachshin v. AOL, LLC
This settlement over email advertising inappropriately channeled settlement funds to third parties unrelated to the class. The Ninth Circuit sustained the Center’s objection and reversed the district court’s approval of the settlement.
Robert F. Booth Trust v. Crowley
The Center objected to this shareholder-derivative settlement offering no value to shareholders and $925,000 to plaintiffs’ lawyers. The district court denied the Center’s motion to intervene, then the Seventh Circuit reversed and dismissed the lawsuit.
Dewey v. Volkswagen AG
Plaintiffs’ lawyers sought $22.5M for themselves and $8M in reimbursements for the class, while also excluding certain class members from their share of the $8M. Finding those class members inadequately represented, the Third Circuit reversed settlement approval.
In re: Motor Fuel Temperature Sales Practices Litigation
The Center for Class Action Fairness appealed the approval of several settlements in multi-district litigation that provided plaintiffs’ attorneys with nearly $19 million in attorneys’ fees, while absent class members receive nothing.
Martin v. Blessing
The Center initially objected to this settlement because, among other problems, its value to class members did not justify the $13M attorneys’ fees request. Ultimately, though, in its petition to the Supreme Court the Center challenged the district court judge’s practice of requiring that plaintiffs’ attorneys “reflect . . . relevant race and gender metrics.”
Lonardo v. Travelers Indemnity Company
In this settlement over insurance pricing, the Center’s client objected that plaintiffs’ lawyers sought $6.6M when the class would only receive $2.8M; in response, the parties modified the settlement to provide the class an additional $2M.
True v. American Honda Motor Company
The Center for Class Action Fariness's client objected to this settlement over fuel-economy advertising because plaintiffs’ lawyers sought nearly $3M for themselves and merely coupons for the class. The district court sustained the objection, rejecting the settlement.
_%E2%80%93_Frontansicht,_1._Juni_2013,_Ratingen.jpg){kind=link}