McKnight v. Uber Technologies, Inc., et al.

Docket number: 14-cv-05615-JST(N.D.Cal.)

At the request of the court, the Hamilton Lincoln Law Institute’s Center for Class Action Fairness submitted an amicus brief as to the question of whether Rule 23(e)(5)(B) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure applies to an objection to Class Counsel’s fee request or to an appeal of the amount of attorney’s fees only. CCAF was appointed amicus curie alongside others in response to a motion by objectors to the settlement asking for an indicative ruling that the Rule did not apply. After briefing from CCAF and the other amici that the Rule did apply, the Court denied the motion.

The underlying case, McKnight v. Uber Technologies, Inc., et al., involved consumer litigation about how the ridesharing giant charged certain fees to its users. After the parties settled, two users objected to class counsel’s fee request and sought fees for of their own counsel arguing they provided benefit to the class. After the Court overruled the objectors’ fee requests finding they conferred no benefit to the class, the objectors sought to appeal. After doing so, they asked the district court to issue an indicative ruling that Rule 23(e)(5)’s requirement of court approval of side settlements only applied to objectors to settlement proposals and not objectors to fee requests.

On September 13, 2022, the Court issued its order denying the objectors motion for an indicative ruling, as CCAF had recommended in its amicus brief.

Case Documents