For all the plaintiffs' bar talks about "access to justice," many trial lawyers will not hesitate to run roughshod over a class member's right of appeal if they think it will short-circuit a meritorious appeal that would jeopardize an excessive fee award.
In each loss, a Justice has issued a separate statement intimating that the lower court had erred. That’s pretty remarkable.
One hopes that a class member who received a postcard investigates the unfairness of the settlement and retains qualified counsel to object.
Tomorrow morning, the Supreme Court will announce orders relating to two cert petitions we filed.
Procter & Gamble (but not the plaintiffs) filed an en banc petition seeking further review of the 2-1 decision striking down the ludicrous attorney-benefit-only settlement in Dry Max Pampers. CCAF filed its opposition yesterday. Similarly problematic to the Dry Max Pampers settlement is the case of Richardson v. L'Oreal, a pathetic lawsuit and settlement that seems to have forum-shopping shenanigans. CCAF attorney Adam Schulman filed an objection on behalf of a class member. One tactic class counsel engages in is…
"The leading critic of abusive class-action settlements is Ted Frank of the Center for Class Action Fairness, and he is one of the lawyers challenging the Facebook settlement. In testimony in March before a House subcommittee, Mr. Frank said Facebook’s payment to the new charity bordered on a sham."
HP Inkjet will not be reviewed, cementing our win for class members; mildly successful result in Wyeth.
A great opinion protecting class members against predatory attorneys. Congratulations to CCAF attorney Adam Schulman (Georgetown Law '10), who won his first appellate oral argument.
On Friday (with generous pro bono work from BakerHostetler) we filed our first cert petition, and the first substantive request that the Supreme Court clarify the law of cy pres.
