October 15
Tomorrow morning, the Supreme Court will announce orders relating to two cert petitions we filed.
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.
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.
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.
CCAF filed an opening brief in October; after many delays in the briefing schedule, we filed our reply brief in April. Details at Point of Law.