Majority Author Affirms The Settlement, But—In A Concurrence—Writes It Is Time To Reconsider The Practice Of Cy Pres Awards. In In re Google Inc. Street View Electronic Communications Litig., Case No. 20-15616 (9th Cir. Dec. 27, 2021) (published), the Ninth Circuit affirmed a district judge’s approval of a settlement in a 60-million member class […]
Ninth Circuit Showing A Significant Trend To Review Class Action Settlements Closely, Especially Where Non-Cash Relief, Clear Sailing Provisions, And Reverter Features Are Involved. The Ninth Circuit certainly has taken a much closer scrutiny of coupon/voucher/non-cash relief settlements in a series of decisions we have posted on in the past under our category “Class
Dissenting Circuit Judge Would Have Affirmed District Judge Fee Award. Vines v. Welspun Pipes Inc., No. 20-2168 (8th Cir. Aug. 18, 2021) is an interesting case which shows how appellate circuit judges can have differing perspectives on approaching class action fee awards. What happened in this one is that class action counsel on
Ninth Circuit Seems To Be Looking At Class Action Settlement Valuations Most Closely, Although Dissenting Circuit Judge Thought District Judge’s Decision Was Adequate. We are starting to discern a trend by the Ninth Circuit to scrutinize class action settlements and fee requests with more rigor, as Kim v. Allison (Tinder, Inc.), Case No. 19-55807
No Final Judgment/Settlement Occurred, With Google Agreeing To Pay Outside Of The Common Fund, And With The Collateral Order Doctrine Not Inapplicable Under The Circumstances. The Ninth Circuit, in AdTrader, Inc. v. Google, LLC, Case No. 20-15542 (9th Cir. July 30, 2021) (published), faced an interesting fact pattern as evidenced by this passage near
Inordinate Fee Distributions, Clear Sailing Provisions, And Reverter Of Reduced Fees Award To Defendant Were Storm Warnings In This Particular Case. Briseno v. Henderson (ConAgra Foods, Inc.), Case No. 19-56297 (9th Cir. June 1, 2021) (published) is a must review for any clients and practitioners in the class action area. It certainly shows the
Pragmatic Valuation of Class Action Settlement Is Key In Voucher/Coupon Cases. Rael v. The Children’s Place, Inc., 2021 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 63117 (S.D. Cal. Mar. 31, 2021) is a situation where class action counsel’s fee award was denied without prejudice until the true value of a voucher and coupon settlement could be determined under
Percentage Of Value Governs Coupon Portion And Lodestar Governs Non-Coupon Portion, Articulating How To Calculate Lodestar In The Latter Situation; But …. Lodestar Can Be Applied In A Mixed Settlement If Adjustments Are Made For Coupon Portion Of Settlement. Practitioners and district judges in the Ninth Circuit should welcome the circuit court’s clarification of
For Noncoupon Relief, District Judge Bashant Grants $3.42 Million In Fees Based On Anticipated $10.5 Million Cash Fund Versus Class Counsel’s $5.7 Million Lodestar Request. U.S. District Judge Cynthia Bashant’s decision in In re Easysaver Rewards Litig., 2020 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 77483 (S.D. Cal. May 1, 2020) contains an excellent discussion of the methodology
Plaintiff’s Counsel Failed To Demonstrate That It Conferred A Benefit On The Class Beyond The $158,446 In Incurred Fees For Some Authorized Document Review. Attorney fee awards in class actions are wholly contingent on achieving benefit for the class – a requirement applying to both lead and non-lead counsel, with each required to
