We are mystified how the plaintiffs intend to justify the settlement; perhaps they will contend that the $10 discount "certificates" issued to the class are not coupons. The attorneys and class representatives are asking for $1.46 million without even an attempt to predict the redemption rate of these certificates.
But who has the incentive to hire an expensive attorney to object?
Today the Center for Class Action Fairness announced multiple victories in class action objections it filed in five class action settlements that will result in class members receiving over $5 million more than what their class attorneys were willing to negotiate.
So why did the attorneys get $2.1 million? Because of the economic fiction of "fees" and "expenses," which are calculated differently.
The audio file of Monday's oral argument in the Ninth Circuit in the Bluetooth case is now on line. The panel consisted of circuit Judges Hawkins and Fisher and N.D. Ohio district court Judge Zouhary. Briefing: Opening brief Plaintiff-appellees' brief Defendant-appellees' brief Reply brief
The briefing by the settling parties in support of final approval seemed exceptionally poor, though I admittedly have never been in a position where I've tried to defend an indefensible settlement.
The Ninth Circuit has scheduled oral argument in the Bluetooth case for Monday, February 7, 9 a.m., in the federal courthouse in Pasadena. (Five other cases are on the calendar, so I probably won't get my fifteen minutes until after 10 a.m.) I'm undefeated (well, ok, 1-0) in that courthouse.
The Center filed an objection today in the Northern District of California. Kabateck Brown Kellner, who we've seen before in the $0 AOL settlement and the $117k Classmates.com settlement, are among the lead attorneys in this ripoff as well.
Trial lawyers often say that they care about access to justice, but that principle seems to go out the window when it comes to objectors to unfair class action settlements that might interfere with attorneys' fees. In Dewey v. Volkswagen, currently pending on appeal in the Third Circuit (10-3618, consolidated with 10-3506, 10-3617, 10-3798, and cross-appeals 10-3651 and 10-3652), the plaintiffs' attorneys have asked for an oversized appeal bond explicitly to prevent the…
For the life of me, I can't imagine why a defense attorney with the best interests of his client in mind wouldn't simply say: "You sued us, you defend the settlement. We're paying you hundreds of thousands of dollars to go away. My client shouldn't have to pay another penny into this case."
_%E2%80%93_Frontansicht,_1._Juni_2013,_Ratingen.jpg){kind=link}