Circuit Judge Posner Disturbed With Valuation, Reversion (“Kicker”) Clauses, And Convoluted Claim Forms. Circuit Judge Posner, on behalf of a 3-0 panel, authored an opinion in Pearson v. NBTY, Inc., Nos. 14-1198 et seq. (7th Cir. Nov. 19, 2014) in which a class action fee award was scuttled because it was too high—finding […]
Fee Award in TD Bank Wage/Hour Class Action. In Keller v. TD Bank, N.A., Civ. Action No. 12-5045 (E.D.Pa. Nov. 4, 2014 Order), U.S. District Judge L. Felipe Restrepo awarded class action counsel exactly what they wanted–$1.2 million in fees out of a $6 million settlement fund in the settlement of a wage/hour
Fee Award Was One-Third of $19 Million Settlement Common Fund, With Percentage Of Recovery Being Acceptable Method Of Recovery In Common Fund Cases. In Laffitte v. Robert Half International Inc., Case No. B249253 (2d Dist., Div. 7 Oct. 29, 2014) (unpublished), a $19 million class action settlement was approved in a tricky wage/hour
Judge Harold Kahn Reads The Riot Act. If ever a case demonstrates why settlements of class actions and fee awards to class counsel are subject to court oversight and scrutiny, this is it. Lofton v. Wells Fargo Home Mortgage v. Wells Fargo Home Mortgage, Case No. A136626 (1/3 October 22, 2014) (certified for publication).
Settlement Valued at $6.8 Million; $2.2 Million in Fees Approved. In Webster v. LegalZoom.com, Inc., Case No. B240129 (2d Dist., Div. 1 Oct. 1, 2014) (unpublished), the Second District sustained a lower court approval of a class action settlement against LegalZoom where the settlement value was pegged at $6.8 million. Class counsel did
Settlement Involved ADA Compliance Relief, No Monetary Benefits to ADA Patrons. Wheelchair ramp at Minneapolis Federal Building. Carol M. Highsmith, photographer. 2012. Library of Congress. Moeller v. Taco Bell Corp., Case No. 4:02-cv-05849-PJH (N.D. Cal.) is a long-running ADA class action brought against Taco Bell, with the case alleging scooter-bound and wheelchair-bound
$8 Million Percentage of Recovery Request Nixed; Reductions Made for Inefficient Work Efforts and High Settlement/Mediation Work Requests. In Rose v. Bank of America Corp., Case Nos. 5:11-CV-02390 & 5:12-CV-04009-EJD (N.D. Cal. Aug. 29, 2014) (Doc. No. 180), U.S. District Judge Edward J. Davila gave final approval to a settlement of a class
Dissenting Judge Concerned About Claim Response Rates and Clear Sailing/Reverter Clauses. Laguna v. Singh, Case No. 12-55479 (9th Cir. June 3, 2014) (published) was a case which shows the divergent views of federal jurists on class action settlements where the common fund value is not of a fully liquidated nature. The majority
Percentage of Common Fund Not Dispositive, But Cross-Check Showed Fees As Measured By Value Of Claims Was Still Within the Ballpark. In Litwin v. iRenew Bio Energy Solutions, LLC, Case No. B248759 (2d Dist., Div. 1 May 28, 2014) (partially published; fee discussion not published), a class action settlement in a false advertising
Around $13.25 Million, 25% Of $53 Million Settlement Fund (After Deducting Class Action Administration Expenses), Is Awarded To Class Counsel. Generally, California uses the lodestar as the fee-setting approach in the class action context, “cross-checked” by the percentage of recovery approach. However, reasoning by U.S. District Judge Richard Seeborg in his fee award
