Pampers Dry Max class action settlement objection
This week, we objected to a $0 settlement of the Pampers Dry Max class action.
This week, we objected to a $0 settlement of the Pampers Dry Max class action.
The decision contradicts (and ignores) Bluetooth, Aqua Dots, and the Class Action Fairness Act, and applied the wrong standard of law in creating an essentially irrebuttable presumption of fairness for the settlement.
The Center for Class Action Fairness announced today its victory in the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit objecting to a valueless class action settlement.
The decision provides yet more evidence that the real problem with these settlements lies with the judges who approve them. Class-action lawyers are peddling absolution to their targets: In exchange for a settlement that includes lucrative fees, they can obtain a court decree ending the possibility of any further litigation over the same claims.
The objectors then appealed to the 9th Circuit, which reversed and vacated the settlement."We agree that the disparity between the value of the class recovery and class counsel's compensation raises at least an inference of unfairness, and that the current record does not adequately dispel the possibility that class counsel bargained away a benefit to the class in exchange for their own interests," Judge Michael Daly Hawkins wrote for the unanimous three-judge panel sitting in Pasadena.
"We got a very good ruling about the importance of these issues," Frank said. "There are a lot of settlements structured like this, and we got a very firm ruling from the Ninth Circuit that this is a problem."
It's still unclear to me why the Third Circuit waited a year before our briefs were due from our appeal.
The objection, filed in the Southern District of New York on behalf of a class member, underscores that the proposed Sirius XM Radio settlement would provide valueless injunctive relief to the class but $13 million to class attorneys.
The growth of the Center for Class Action Fairness can be shown just by the breadth of its activities on Monday, June 20.
As discussed at Point of Law, CCAF has filed an objection to the Babies "R" Us settlement in McDonough v. Toys "R" Us, Inc., No. 06-cv-242 (E.D. Pa.).