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 […]
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
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Doskocz v. ALLS Lien Services, Case No. A166299 (1st Dist., Div. 1 May 20, 2024) (partially published; fee discussion unpublished), class counsel prevailed on behalf of plaintiffs in case involving some novel and complex issues
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
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
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
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
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,
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
Flint, Michigan Class Action Case Fee Issues Are Resolved At the District Court Level. District Judge Judith Levy of the USDC, E.D. Michigan, has issued her decision on how attorney’s fees should be allocated in the Flint, Michigan water class action. The total settlement was for $626 million. She decided that the main attorneys
