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 In Turman v. Parent, Case No. G060330 (4th Dist., Div. 3 July 6, 2022) (unpublished), after a decade of litigation producing several appellate decisions, all things must come to rest, parties or counsel notwithstanding.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
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
