In August 2013, the district court approved the final settlement and adopted some of CCAF’s arguments on injunctive relief, attorneys' fees, and increased the class-member award to $15 from $10, making several million dollars more available for the class by reducing the attorneys’ fees.
The Center’s clients objected to this settlement over car rental fees wherein plaintiffs’ lawyers sought $1.5M for themselves but only coupons for the class; the court rejected the settlement.
An opinion by Chief Justice John Roberts expressed concerns over the practice of cy pres, acknowledging the need for the Supreme Court to address the issue in a future case.
The Ninth Circuit held that the Class Action Fairness Act requires that when class members obtain coupons in a settlement, the lawyers’ fees attributable to those coupons must themselves be based on the value of coupons that are redeemed.
The Center’s client objected to a settlement over deceptive advertising that promised over $1M to plaintiffs’ lawyers and about $100,000 to the class. The court upheld the objection, eventually reducing the plaintiffs’ lawyers’ fees and sanctioning them for abusive litigation tactics.
This settlement over email advertising inappropriately channeled settlement funds to third parties unrelated to the class. The Ninth Circuit sustained the Center’s objection and reversed the district court’s approval of the settlement.
The Center objected to this shareholder-derivative settlement offering no value to shareholders and $925,000 to plaintiffs’ lawyers. The district court denied the Center’s motion to intervene, then the Seventh Circuit reversed and dismissed the lawsuit.
Plaintiffs’ lawyers sought $22.5M for themselves and $8M in reimbursements for the class, while also excluding certain class members from their share of the $8M. Finding those class members inadequately represented, the Third Circuit reversed settlement approval.
The Center for Class Action Fairness appealed the approval of several settlements in multi-district litigation that provided plaintiffs’ attorneys with nearly $19 million in attorneys’ fees, while absent class members receive nothing.
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.”
_%E2%80%93_Frontansicht,_1._Juni_2013,_Ratingen.jpg){kind=link}