Cases: Class Actions

Appealability, Class Actions: Order Denying A Plaintiff’s Request To Be Exempt From Coordinated Proceeding Common Benefit Surcharge By Other Attorneys Is Affirmed On Appeal

Cases: Appealability, Cases: Class Actions

Appellate Court Determines It Is Appealable Under The Collateral Order Doctrine, But Appellant Still Loses On The Merits. In Pruchnik v. JCCP464 Common Benefit Comm., Case No. B330338 (2d Dist., Div. 7 Nov. 17, 2025) (published), plaintiff, in a coordinated proceeding involving Toyota unintended acceleration cases with relates issues, settled his case but brought a […]

Class Actions: 2025 Carlton Fields Class Action Survey Recently Issued

Cases: Class Actions

Survey Shows Increases In Class Action Case Numbers, Corporate Litigation Budgets Spent On Class Actions, And In-House Counsel Time Spent On Them, With Labor/Employment And Consumer Fraud Actions Leading The Class Action Pack.                The 2025 Carlton Fields Class Action Survey, which is publicly available, has just been issued.  It has interesting trends for class

Class Actions, Employment, POOF!: Reversal Of Class Action Summary Adjudication On Class Meal/Rest Breaks Claim Meant Substantial Fee Award Reversed Also

Cases: Class Actions, Cases: Employment, Cases: POOF!

Plaintiffs’ Reasons To Not Reverse The Award Were Unpersuasive.                Acting Presiding Justice Segal, author on behalf of the 2/7 DCA in Benton v. Telecom Network Specialists, Inc., Case No. B318867 (2d Dist., Div. 7 Aug. 19, 2024), confronted a very spirited opposition by plaintiffs/class winning substantial fees for why the reviewing court should not

Class Actions, Multipliers, Private Attorney General, Reasonableness Of Fees: $1.174 Million Award To Class Counsel In Fair Debt Collection Practices Case Affirmed On Appeal

Cases: Class Actions, Cases: Multipliers, Cases: Private Attorney General (CCP 1021.5), Cases: Reasonableness of Fees

Significant Benefit Incurred, If Injunctive Relief Was Considered, And Other Objections Were Not Specific To Justify Any Reduction.                In Doskocz v. ALLS Lien Services, Case No. A166299 (1st Dist., Div. 1 May 20, 2024) (partially published; fee discussion unpublished), class counsel prevailed on behalf of plaintiffs in case involving some novel and complex issues

Class Action, Intellectual Property: $1.7 Million Fee Award To Class Counsel In A Case Netting $52,841.05 In Benefits, With No Meaningful Injunctive/Monetary Relief, Reversed And Remanded

Cases: Class Actions, Cases: Intellectual Property

True Benefit To The Class And Proportionality Of Fees Had To Be Scrutinized On Remand.             The beginning paragraph in Lowery v. Rhapsody International, Inc., Case No. 22-15162 (9th Cir. June 7, 2023) (published) is a doozy:             “This case will likely make the average person shake her head in disbelief: the plaintiffs’ lawyers filed

Class Actions: Federal Circuit Reverses $185 Million Class Counsel Award Because Claims Court’s Analysis Was Inconsistent With Class Opt-In Notice Terms And Did Not Justify A High 18-19 Positive Multiplier On The Lodestar

Cases: Class Actions

Fee Award Arose Out Of A $3.7 Billion Common-Fund Recovery In A Patient Protection And Affordable Care Act And Health Care And Education Reconciliation Act (ACA) Class Action.             With some strong language indicating that lower federal courts must acts as fiduciaries when it comes to scrutinizing fee applications in common-fund class action situations, the

Class Action: Uber Class Action Settlement Challenges Were Not Sustained On Appeal

Cases: Class Actions

Main Reason Was That The Settlement Was Not A “Coupon” Settlement.             The Ninth Circuit, in McKnight v. Hinojosa (Uber Technologies, Inc.), Case Nos. 21-16623 et al. (9th Cir. Nov. 30, 2022) (published), affirmed a class action settlement against Uber over certain objectors’ challenges.              The district court approved a class action settlement, after concluding

Class Actions, Poof!: Ninth Circuit Vacates $310 – 500 Million Class Settlement Based On Objectors’ Arguments To Settlement Fairness

Cases: Class Actions, Cases: POOF!

That Meant $80.6 Million Class Counsel Fee Award Went POOF!, And Whether Fees For Parallel State Litigation Was Appropriate Had To Be Considered Based On Its Impact On Lodestar Multiplier.             In Named Plaintiffs, et al. v. Apple, Inc., Case Nos. 21-15758 et al. (9th Cir. Sept. 28, 2022) (published), the Ninth Circuit, based on

Class Actions: Lower Court Reduction Of Lodestar Fees From Preliminary Amount To A Lesser Reduced Amount In A Final Order Was No Abuse Of Discretion

Cases: Class Actions

Preliminary Approval Amount Was $1.04 Million, But Final Amount Sustained On Appeal Was $880,000.             In Turman v. Parent, Case No. G060330 (4th Dist., Div. 3 July 6, 2022) (unpublished), after a decade of litigation producing several appellate decisions, all things must come to rest, parties or counsel notwithstanding.  That finally occurred in this case,

Appealability, Class Actions: Ninth Circuit Decides It Has Pendent Appellate Jurisdiction To Review A Non-appealable Interim Fee Award Inextricably Intertwined With The Merits Of The Appealable Orders

Cases: Appealability, Cases: Class Actions

Judicial Economy Seemed To Be The “Flavor” Here.             In Bowerman v. Field Asset Services, Inc., Nos. 18-16303/18-17275 (9th Cir. July 5, 2022) (published), a “first impression,” narrow appellate pendent jurisdictional issue was under consideration by the Ninth Circuit.  (Appellate practitioners might salivate, others not so much—but we post on it nevertheless.)  However, we can

Scroll to Top