CCAF objected Thursday to an unfair settlement that leaves class members with virtually nothing, their attorneys with over half of the settlement fund - $1.35 million - and most remaining funds to an unrelated organization.
Class member and Center for Class Action Fairness attorney Anna St. John objected to the settlement approval, class certification, and request for attorneys' fees in Saska v. Metropolitan Museum of Art on January 27, 2017. The original case claims that the Museum's "pay what you wish" admission policy deceived the public in violation of state law. The proposed settlement provides class members with near-worthless injunctive relief, primarily in the form of changes…
CCAF is appealing the approval of the settlement of a shareholder suit in which the plaintiffs' attorneys received $575,000, while the shareholders recovered only immaterial supplemental disclosures.
CCAF Attorney Adam Schulman said, “This settlement exemplifies the problem of class action attorneys behaving as if they have no clients other than the general public. It is unacceptable to propose a settlement that waives class members’ rights yet provides them absolutely nothing in return."
The Center for Class Action Fairness won a victory for consumers when a court in the Northern District of California entered an order this week agreeing with CCAF’s position that more than $2.35 million in uncashed checks in the Online DVD Rental Antitrust Litigation settlement should go to consumers rather than to third-party charities unrelated to the litigation.
Today, the Competitive Enterprise Institute’s Center for Class Action Fairness won its challenge to a class action settlement deal related to the merger between Walgreens and Boots pharmacies.
Late last week the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania ruled that the $14 million fee request by attorneys in a coupon settlement over Justice clothing store sales was excessive under federal law and that only $5.3 million could be currently justified.
“A class member deserves more than a potentially useless date voucher from It’s Just Lunch, which is why we object to the current settlement which awards millions to the attorneys who decided to take up the case and leaves the nationwide class members with nothing,” said CCAF attorney Anna St. John. “Quite simply, the settlement is unfair and the court should reject it.”
The court order means that consumers will receive $9 million more than they would have under class counsel’s original request.
Today, the Center for Class Action Fairness (CCAF) filed a reply brief in the Gaos v. Google settlement appeal to the Ninth Circuit. In the original case plaintiffs’ lawyers sued Google for statutory damages for alleged federal privacy violations by their search engine. The settlement established an $8.5 million fund, none of which went to the class members affected by the privacy violations. Instead, the settlement fees were split between the plaintiffs’ lawyers –…
