Posted on 08/28/2012 4:42:24 AM PDT by AtlasStalled
Federal appellate courts across the country increasingly are reversing settlement agreements and fee applications approved by the lower court judges in class action cases.
On Friday the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals reversed a deal which awarded $2 million in attorneys' fees to the plaintiffs' lawyers but provided the class members -- consumers who purchased Frosted Mini-Wheats after an ad campaign by Kellogg claiming the cereal improved children's attentiveness -- with only "a 'paltry' $5 a box for up to three boxes" as reported by Maura Dolan for the Los Angeles Times. Writing for a unanimous three-judge panel, Judge Stephen S. Trott held:
[T]he $2 million award of attorneys' fees is unreasonable. Indeed, because the settlement grants counsel "a disproportionate distribution of the settlement" compared with the benefit to the class, it is possible the settlement was "driven by fees." * * * [T]he $2 million fee award breaks out to just over $2,100 per hour. Not even the most highly sought after attorneys charge such rates to their clients.
Download Kellogg Decision
Last month a unanimous three-judge panel from the Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals put the kibosh on a derivative action brought on behalf of shareholders by the law firms Vianale & Vianale and Sarraf Gentile against retailing giant Sears as reported by Daniel Fisher for Forbes. In an opinion written by Judge Frank H. Easterbrook the appellate court held "this litigation is so feeble that it is best to end it immediately," and "the only goal of this suit appears to be fees for the plaintiffs' lawyers."
Download Sears Decision
Critics of class actions often argue that many cases serve as little more than vehicles by which the plaintiffs' lawyers get rich, and often the district judges do little in protecting the interests of the class members when approving the settlement agreements and fee applications; however, the two above decisions suggest that the appellate courts no longer may be willing to allow the district judges to rubber stamp the deals with gratuitous recitations of the governing standards.
Excellent news.
Excellent news.
Class action is often just a way to get around the constitutional requirement that a plaintiff must have standing. Class action allows lawyers to bring purely philosophical cases into court.
Duh what did the plaintiffs get, $1.25 each?
Frosted Mini Wheats is my favorite cereal.
I don't agree with that. A class representitive (ie. the named plaintiff) must have the same standing as a plaintiff in any other non class case. Trial Rule 23 does not eliminate a standing requirement.
There are many problems with class actions, but lack of plaintiff standing is not one of them. Indeed, many class actions are dismissed precisely because of a failure of the standing requirements (both of the lead plaintiff “class representative” and of the class meeting to cohesiveness requirements).
And don’t you find yourself more ‘attentive’ after eating them? There’s the scientific proof.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.