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.”
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.
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.
In this settlement over a data security breach, plaintiffs’ lawyers were seeking $1.87M for themselves and only vouchers for the class: the district court upheld the objection and the settlement was renegotiated to yield cash to the class.
In a groundbreaking opinion, the Ninth Circuit held that the court failed to justify the high attorneys’ fees and the questionable settlement provisions that protected those fees. Bluetooth has been cited in hundreds of cases and numerous courts have relied on CCAF's precedent-setting victory.
