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.

Lundy v. Meta Platforms, Inc.

The Hamilton Lincoln Law Institute successfully represented an objector challenging a proposed settlement to the extent the court exercises the option to divert all or part of the $37 million fund to third parties rather than to the class.

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.

Search this website Type then hit enter to search