Thursday, October 14, 2010

$0 settlement in Breyers "Smooth & Dreamy" class action

Russell Jackson adds to my workload by drawing my attention to Ercoline v. Unilever United States, Inc., Civ. A. No. 2:10-cv-01747-SRC-MAS (D.N.J.), a settlement of $0 for the class, and $200,000 for the attorneys.  This runs into the Murray v. GMAC problem we've repeatedly discussed in other objections.

Because I'm a member of the class of purchasers of Breyers Smooth & Dreamy ice cream products, I will be objecting; to deter objections, the attorneys have threatened objectors with intrusive depositions and require illegal hoops before permitting objectors to object, despite the plain statement of Rule 23 that class members are permitted to object, period.  If you're a class member, and you're willing to risk a deposition, and you independently think this settlement is unfair, you're welcome to contact me; you are also welcome to contact me if you're a class member and don't wish to risk a deposition, and we can discuss your options.

1 comment:

  1. Any thoughts on the Google Buzz settlement: $8.5M total with "up to" 30% for the class attorneys, $2500 each for the class representatives, and the rest as cy pres awards to Internet privacy organizations. That is, $0 to the remainder of the class. And as much as I'd like to see EPIC or the EFF get some millions, I don't think this is a great way for it to happen.

    Here's the Ars Technica story on the settlement with a link to the PDF of the draft agreement (in case you haven't seen it):