“The settlement at issue in Frank vs. Gaos epitomizes cy pres abuse in class actions, where money is funneled to a slush fund for lawyers to send to their alma maters and pet causes rather than their clients,” CEI Senior Attorney Melissa Holyoak told Legal Newsline.
“EasySaver is a disturbing example of how the Ninth Circuit’s lenient approach to cy pres in class action settlements creates an incentive for class attorneys to favor sending money to their preferred causes and institutions even when distribution of funds to the class is feasible,” said [Ted] Frank.
Today the Center for Class Action Fairness filed a supplemental brief with the Supreme Court, arguing the Ninth Circuit’s decision in the EasySaver case earlier this month underscores the need for its proposed standard governing cy pres settlements in class action suits when the court decides Frank v. Gaos. “EasySaver is a disturbing example of how the Ninth Circuit’s lenient approach to cy pres in class action settlements creates an incentive for class attorneys to favor sending money to their preferred…
Our class action legal team at Center for Class Action Fairness, has a video explainer on their upcoming case before the U.S. Supreme Court this term, Frank v. Gaos.
NYT: Theodore H. Frank is familiar with the adage that a lawyer who represents himself has a fool for a client. But later this month, he will stand before the Supreme Court to argue his own case.
The Competitive Enterprise Institute (now also represented by Hamilton Lincoln Law Institute) and four individuals – John France, Daniel Frank, Jean-Claude Gruffat, and Charles Haywood – filed an appeal today with the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit, seeking to overturn unlawful conditions imposed by the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) on a merger between three major U.S. cable companies. In 2015, Charter, Time Warner Cable, and Bright House…
A deal resolving claims that online consumers were automatically enrolled in a rewards program will stand, but the $8.7 million fee for class counsel must be recalculated, the Ninth Circuit held Oct. 3.
“We are gratified that the court rejected class counsel’s attempt to evade the Class Action Fairness Act’s restrictions on coupon settlements, but the fact that the court was willing to countenance attorneys choosing to prefer their alma mater and local San Diego schools to nationwide class recovery while collecting 15 to 40 times as much as their clients shows why the Supreme Court needs to reverse in Frank v. Gaos. We are considering our options for further review.”
While Judge Durkin refused Frank’s request to intervene as a litigant, the judge said the plaintiffs’ attorneys must address Frank’s contentions concerning the Walgreen decision before allowing the attorneys to keep their fees.
Director of Litigation and Senior Attorney Ted Frank discussed class action lawsuits on Lawsuit Watch, hosted by Curt Schroder.
