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.

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.

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.

Williams v. Reckitt Benckiser LLC

Theodore H. Frank objects to a class action settlement involving Neuriva-branded nutritional supplements that will pay class members perhaps one third of the $2.9 million fee request that plaintiffs’ counsel seek for themselves.

Appleby v. Bowser

The Hamilton Lincoln Law Institute filed suit against the District of Columbia, Mayor Muriel Bowser, and Attorney General Karl Racine to block the enforcement of the newly enacted rule banning wedding dancing, a unique form of expressive activity protected by the First Amendment.

<em>Appleby v. Bowser</em>
Photo credit: Wikimedia.
Search this website Type then hit enter to search