The National Law Journal covers the implications of Frank v. Gaos and HamLinc’s pending cert petition in Perryman v. Romero, quoting Ted Frank on these topics:
In the Google high court case, Frank had urged the justices to hear Perryman if they failed to reach the merits of the settlement involving Google.
“The circuit split is still there,” Frank said. “They granted cert on it before and the Ninth Circuit is still signing off on some really appalling cy pres settlements.”
Jennie Anderson of San Francisco’s Andrus Anderson, represents Josue Romero and other class members. She did not respond to a request for comment. The high court has given her until April 17 to file a brief in opposition. Provide Commerce was represented in the Ninth Circuit by Leo Norton of Cooley.
Sixteen state attorneys general, led by Arizona solicitor general Oramel Skinner, have filed an amicus brief supporting Frank’s petition.
The Center for Individual Rights, with Michael Rosman as counsel, also is a supporting amicus. Rosman raises a First Amendment issue with cy pres awards. Relying on the high court’s union fee decision—Janus v. AFSCME, Rosman tells the court that cy pres funds “may then be used to engage in speech or political activity with which class members may very well disagree, in violation of their First Amendment rights.”
Jonah Knobler, partner in Patterson Belknap Webb & Tyler, said the oral arguments in Frank’s Google case suggested that cy pres-only settlements were not likely to survive.
“We could only guess how Justice Thomas felt about them, however, since he did not speak,” Knobler said. “With Thomas’ dissent, it is even more likely that, once the court finally reaches the issue, it will significantly limit the use of cy pres.”