In re Automotive Parts Antitrust Litigation
CCAF filed an objection on behalf of two car rental franchises to an an eleventh-hour request by attorneys to add $93 million to an already-generous fee award.
National Association of Scholars v. DOE
HLLI represent the National Association of Scholars, who challenge the U.S. Department of Energy’s requirement that researchers submit a DEI statement with applications for research grants.
Kansas, et al. v. Becerra (CMS staffing rule challenge)
HLLI suit challenging the legality of a federal regulation by CMS that threatens the health, safety, and well-being of millions of nursing home patients, by requiring nursing homes to hire more than 100,000 additional full-time employees, while providing no funding to support the necessary hires.
In re Advocate Aurora Health Pixel Litigation
HLLI represents an objector challenging a proposed settlement where class counsel seeks an outsized percentage of the settlement amount for themselves and which caps class members claims at pennies on the dollar.
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.
Stock v. Gray et al. [Missouri Board of Pharmacy]
HLLI filed suit on behalf of a pharmacist who challenges a new Missouri law that would prevent pharmacists in the state from communicating with physicians or patients to dispute the effectiveness of ivermectin or hydroxychloroquine for human use as a COVID-19 treatment.
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.
In re Wawa, Inc. Data Security Litigation
Theodore H. Frank filed an objection to a class action settlement over a data breach of Wawa customer data, which would pay attorneys more than the class members they represent.
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 4
- …
- 7
- Go to the next page