Yeatman v. Hyland
Class member William Yeatman objected to a settlement that provides no direct benefit to class members but instead pays $1.75 million as “cy pres” to fund the creation of a new non-profit.
Greenberg v. Lehocky
HLLI successfully filed a civil rights suit against the Disciplinary Board of the Supreme Court of Pennsylvania to block implementation of a rule that would limit speech by Pennsylvania-licensed attorneys. HLLI unsuccessfully appealed to the Supreme Court concerning the revised rule that replaces the one already found to be unconstitutional.
Ingram Publishing / Alamy Stock Photo
Rael v. The Children’s Place, Inc.
HLLI attorney Anna St. John objected to a settlement with The Children’s Place because it would pay attorneys over $1 million in fees while leaving class members with only small $6 coupons that few class members will use.
Gold v. Lumber Liquidators, Inc.
CCAF's objector contended that only 25% of the cash fund should be awarded to the attorneys until the actual redemption rate of coupons is known. Prior to the fairness hearing, class counsel agreed to defer fees pending coupon redemption, thus resolving Faber's primary objection.
In re Google LLC Street View Electronic Communications Litigation
Much like the Google referrer case that CCAF argued before the Supreme Court, plaintiffs' attorneys have achieved a settlement worth a fraction of pennies-on-the-dollar, then argued that the modest recovery excuses them from actually having to benefit class members. Class member David Lowery objects.
Photo credit: Padaguan/Wikipedia
In re Equifax Inc. Consumer Data Security Breach Litigation
The Center for Class Action Fairness objected on behalf of two class members to the infamous Equifax data breach class action settlement. The settlement is rooted in a fundamental failure to adequately represent the class.
In re Conagra Foods, Inc.
CCAF successfully represented Prof. Todd Henderson, who objected to a settlement that provides him $4.50 and all class members put together less than one seventh of the $6.85 million attorneys' fee request, premised on a “$27 million” injunction that did nothing.
In re Wells Fargo & Co. Shareholder Derivative Litigation
CCAF filed an objection on July 11, 2019 arguing that because this is a megafund settlement, any fee award should be significantly less than the 25% benchmark. Plaintiffs' counsel also drastically overstate their lodestar with millions of dollars of work by contract attorneys billed at excessive rates.
In re Stericycle Securities Litigation
The Hamilton Lincoln Law Institute successfully represented an objector in Stericycle Securities Litigation, where all of the attorneys are supporters of Mississippi Attorney General Jim Hood, who has sole control over one of the named plaintiffs. The Seventh Circuit vacated the fee award on appeal, and plaintiffs’ counsel agreed with HLLI to reduce their excessive fee request, to avoid further litigation.
In re Samsung Top-Load Washing Machine Marketing Sales Practices
Samsung sold top-loading washing machines that sometimes violently vibrate and “explode,” but the settlement provides mostly mail-in rebates to class members. Attorneys should not be able to guarantee a generous fee award for themselves while class members are stuck at best with rebate coupons that require them to buy again from the allegedly negligent defendant. The district court reduced the fee award, but otherwise approved the settlement.
