CCAF objected to the class action settlement negotiated by the plaintiffs' lawyers because it provided $0 to class members and $8.5 million to be divided between the plaintiffs’ lawyers – who received $1000/hour on this case – and third-party cy pres recipients, including class counsel's alma maters, and several organizations that Google already supports through donations.
CCAF appealed the district court’s approval of a settlement over data marketing practices, from which class members cannot even opt out, and under which class members receive only injunctive relief that was forbidden by statute, while plaintiffs’ lawyers are awarded over $5.3M. The Fourth Circuit affirmed the settlement and the Center asked for rehearing.
CCAF objected in Poertner v. Gillette Co., a settlement of consumer fraud claims over Duracell batteries where the attorneys received $5.7 million and the class only $0.3 million, and appealed it to the Supreme Court, which unfortunately declined to review the case. CCAF’s objection, however, led class counsel to admit that the vast majority of consumer fraud settlements leave more than 99% of class members uncompensated.
The district court sustained the Center’s objection to a settlement over shampoo labeling where the class would receive valueless injunctive relief and the attorneys sought nearly $1M for themselves.
CCAF successfully objected to a settlement that paid $1 million to plaintiffs' lawyers and provided only $830,000 in coupons to class members.
Thanks to the Center’s objection, the parties negotiated a new settlement providing the class with more than $3 million additional recovery.
The Center’s client objected to a settlement over Southwest drink coupons given to “Business Select” passengers as a perk. Thanks to the Center’s involvement in the case, in 2017 the parties agreed to a resolution providing class members triple the recovery than would have been provided under the 2012 settlement agreement.
As a result of the Center’s objection, the parties modified the settlement to increase direct payments to the class by over $5.8M. Our second objection resulted in a third-party recipient of settlement funds that better suited the purpose of the litigation.
The Center for Class Action Fairness objected to and then appealed the approval of a nationwide class settlement where 0.2% of the class received a cash benefit, a total of $225,000, and the remaining class members received low-value coupons. In the same settlement, $8.85 million went to the plaintiffs' lawyers and $3 million to local San Diego universities.
The Center represented a shareholder objecting to a securities class action wherein the $16.5M plaintiffs’ attorneys’ fee request was 4.2 times their normal billing rate. The district court reduced the excessive fee request by $3M.
,_N401WN_-_LAX_(24891087549).jpg){kind=link}
