October 15

Tomorrow morning, the Supreme Court will announce orders relating to two cert petitions we filed.

Mid-September update

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…

CCAF in today’s New York Times

"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."

CCAF in today’s <em>New York Times</em>
Scourge of carpathia

Redman v. Radio Shack

One hopes a class member aggrieved by this lawyers-first settlement will contact a non-profit attorney willing to help them object to a settlement with such an unfair and illegal fee request.

Victory in HP Inkjet

A 2-1 decision of the Ninth Circuit agreed with us that the district court incorrectly applied the coupon-valuation provision of the Class Action Fairness Act in the HP Inkjet case.

Search this website Type then hit enter to search