MacClelland v. Cellco Partnership (Verizon intervention)

The Hamilton Lincoln Law Institute represents four intervenors who are challenging plaintiffs’ counsel’s forum shopping tactics in settling a nationwide class action in a state court likely to award more fees out of class recovery than attorneys would get in federal court, where the action was first filed.

Sharpe v. A&W Concentrate Co.

HLLI represents its director, Theodore H. Frank, in objecting to a purported “$15 million settlement” that in fact delivers perhaps $2 million to class members, and earmarks $3.2 million for attorneys’ fees.

<em>Sharpe v. A&W Concentrate Co.</em>
Image Credit: Jorge Franganillo

Couris v. Lawson et al.

HLLI filed suit on behalf of Doctors Michael Couris and Michael Fitzgibbons challenging a California state law that restricts doctors’ First Amendment free speech rights by threatening disciplinary action against their license for discussing with patients anything about COVID-19 that the State views as “misinformation.”

In re Morgan Stanley Data Security Litigation

HLLI successfully represented an objector to a class action settlement where requested attorneys’ fees and expenses equaled to more than 33% of the settlement fund. Worse, the primary settlement relief is fraud insurance services for events that occurred 3-6 years ago, offered to a class where over 90% of the members already have had related services made available to them in other data breach settlements.

In re Novo Nordisk Sec. Litig.

HLLI represented an objector challenging the fairness of a class action settlement that pays a third of the $100 million gross settlement fund to attorneys, instead of the customary 25%.

Hesse v. Godiva Chocolatier

HLLI successfully represented a chocolate consumer who objected to a largely-illusory settlement involving Godiva Chocolatier. The settlement would have paid class members like Lehrer conditionally at most $7 million. In contrast, plaintiffs' attorneys negotiated a fixed $5 million fund earmarked for their own fees.

Gupta v. Bonta

Raj Gupta challenges a new California law that would curtail free speech around virtually every clinic, hospital, and pharmacy in the state.

Search this website Type then hit enter to search