Opening brief in Pearson v. NBTY, Inc., No. 14-1198 (7th Cir.)

In a settlement of several class actions over the labeling of glucosamine supplements, class counsel settled for a claims process that paid the class under $900,000, and token injunctive relief that tweaked the labels, while leaving much of the supposedly fraudulent labeling language in place (and precluding class members from ever suing on that language again). For this, class counsel asked for $4.5 million, claiming that the settlement was really worth tens of millions because 4.7 million class members could have made $3 claims. (In reality, the postcards mailed to ascertainable class members failed to inform them that they were actually class members, and the claims process demanded they provide receipts or other information already in the defendants' possession. Little wonder no money was actually distributed to the class.) Defendant NBTY was really only on the hook for $2 million, of which $1.1 million went to cy pres, though it would have been possible to distribute that money to class members.

To top it all off, the fee request was subject to a clear-sailing clause and reversion to the defendant, the sort of self-serving fee-protection clauses condemned in our Bluetooth victory.

As a class member, I objected, represented by CCAF attorney Melissa Holyoak. The district court approved the settlement, but partially agreed with us that the fee request was excessive, knocking the Rule 23(h) award down to $1.9 million.

We've appealed: we don't think that the Rule 23(e) and Rule 23(h) fairness inquiries are to be done sequentially. NBTY put $6.5 million on the table; class counsel structured the settlement so the class got only a tiny fraction of that money, and ended up costing the class $2.6 million when their excessive fee request reverted to the defendant. We filed our opening brief last week. Because this settlement has so many of the features of bad settlements we object to, it is perhaps the best 13,000-word summary of CCAF philosophy.

• Pearson v. NBTY, Inc. opening brief

Entertainingly, class counsel has cross-appealed: not satisfied with their abusive $1.9 million fee, they want the full $4.5 million.

The case is Pearson v. NBTY, Inc., No. 14-1198 (7th Cir.).

Opening brief in Ninth Circuit MagSafe appeal

In the In re Apple MagSafe Power Adapter Litigation, the attorneys walked away with $3.1 million, while the class got less than $1 million, and likely less than a quarter of what the attorneys got. The district court (Judge Ware in the N.D. Cal.) not only rubber-stamped the settlement while ignoring the Bluetooth precedent, but then issued an order to protect the illegitimate settlement, requiring a punitive appeal bond or the dismissal of any appeals. This deterred three of the five appellants, with a fourth being sanctioned for failing to dismiss his appeal. But Marie Newhouse, represented by me and attorneys with the Center for Class Action Fairness, held firm in her objection, and, after some delaying tactics by the plaintiffs, the opening brief was filed today, as we test whether the Bluetooth principles have teeth or can be ignored by district courts and trial lawyers with impunity. To this add another few questions: when is it permissible to have a "claims-made" settlement that pays the attorneys regardless of whether class members make claims or, as in this case, are deterred from making claims by artificial hoop-jumping requirements? Can class counsel take credit for "injunctive relief" that has the defendant doing what it was already doing before the complaint was filed? Is class counsel entitled to a commission on payments to the settlement administrator? Earlier: objection; appeal bond hypocrisy. The case is Kitagawa v. Apple, Inc., No. 12-15782 (9th Cir.).

Two July 31 wins for the Center

On July 31, district courts substantially reduced attorney fees in two class action settlements where Center for Class Action Fairness attorneys objected.

In the Nutella litigation in the District of New Jersey, Judge Wolfson agreed with our objection that the parties overstated the value of the injunctive relief, and reduced the fee award from $3,725,000 to $1,125,000. More discussion at Point of Law.

And in the remand of the Bluetooth class action settlement in the Central District of California, the court reduced the requested fee award from $850,000 to $282,729.05. The National Law Journal covered without asking me for a quote. The precision of the nickel seems a poor use of court resources, and demonstrates why we argue for recovery based on benefit to the class with lodestar to be used only as a cross-check ceiling. We also think that the court erred in failing to consider the substantial evidence that the injunctive relief was not only worthless but harmful to the class. But we're obviously less dissatisfied with a $282 thousand mistake than a $850 thousand mistake.

Unfortunately, both courts disagreed with us that the "kicker" provision in the settlement combined with the reversion to the defendant meant that the settlement was unfair because of the class attorneys' breach of fiduciary duty to the class, and granted settlement approval. We think this is legal error. When defendants are willing to put $6 million on the table complete a "clear sailing" clause to settle a lawsuit, but only have to pay a little more than half of that because of self-dealing by the class counsel, the unfairness to the class seems fairly clear to us. As the Ninth Circuit said in our Bluetooth win, there is "no apparent reason" for such a reversion. But the Center already has an appeal pending in the Ninth Circuit addressing just this issue, so will likely forgo appeals here unless a cross-appeal is necessary.

Related: district court citing Bluetooth throws out $0 Fraley v. Facebook settlement.

March updates

• If you listen to one oral argument from March 27, well, I have to say that you need to listen to Paul Clement's performance in HHS v. Florida. But if you have time for a second oral argument, and you have a hankering for Third Circuit class action action, I'd be curious about your thoughts of the argument in Dewey v. Volkswagen. See also.
  
• Following up on our earlier post, the Third Circuit denied the motion for sanctions without comment, or permitting us to file a reply brief. (Mazie Slater had no explanation for the misquote; they used the passive voice in describing its mysterious appearance in the brief, and didn't explain how citecheckers missed it.) Having been given such carte blanche, Mazie Slater then proceeded to lie to the court about the terms of the settlement and settlement notice during the oral argument. I simply don't understand why courts aren't willing to do more to police the attorneys who appear before them. If the only consequence for inventing a citation out of whole cloth is the need to file an errata deleting an invented citation (i.e., the brief that should have been filed in the first place), what incentive does the Holmesian "bad actor" have to get the law right in the first place? After all, if there's a 5% chance that the fictionalized version will swing the case, 5% times $9 million in fees is a $450,000 incentive to lie to the court. If the bad actor isn't facing a proportionate downside, you can expect the bad actor to act badly.
  
• We renewed our objection in Bluetooth. Details at Point of Law.
  
• The Apple MagSafe settlement—$600,000 for the class, $3.1 million for the attorneys—was rubber-stamped by the district court. We plan to appeal to the Ninth Circuit.
  
• In the Online DVD Rental Antitrust Litigation settlement with Wal-Mart for a class of Netflix customers, the district court agreed with the settling parties that a coupon isn't a coupon if they call it a "gift card" instead, and that the restrictions on coupon settlements in the Class Action Fairness Act didn't apply, and rejected my objection. We believe this contradicts CAFA, as well as Seventh Circuit precedent, and plan to ask the Ninth Circuit to address this problem.

Deposition fun in the Bluetooth case

It had been a few years since I took a deposition, so it was refreshing to see that I wasn't as rusty as I was worried I'd be. Here's the plaintiffs' expert testifying about the value of the injunctive relief.

Q: So it is your opinion that only a trained audiologist with experience knows whether or not it is unsafe to listen to a device at a high volume level?

MR. HART: I object to the form of the question.

A: It’s my opinion that outside of those rare individuals who are able to educate themselves to such a high degree that no one would be able to determine whether the level at which they’re listening is relatively safe or relatively unsafe.

Q: So even after you’ve warned your patients, they might be listening to the Bluetooth device at unsafe levels?

A: No, because I would be able to provide them with detailed enough information to help them to use the device in a safe manner.

Q: What is that detailed information that is required for them to use the device in a safe manner?

A: The actual output level of the device in their ear at a given volume control setting, which is something that I can measure with my equipment and my -- in my clinic.

Q: And do the warnings provided in this settlement provide that detailed information?

A: To my knowledge, they don’t.

CCAF wins in Ninth Circuit

WASHINGTON, DC - The Center for Class Action Fairness LLC announced today its victory in the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit objecting to a valueless class action settlement. On Friday, the appellate court vacated a district court's 2009 approval of a settlement of a lawsuit alleging that Bluetooth headset manufacturers committed fraud when they failed to give more prominent warnings that listening to headsets continually at loud volumes might cause hearing damage. (A similar class action over Apple iPods was dismissed.) The settlement would have provided no cash to the class, but $850,000 to the attorneys. The Center believes that this is the first time the Ninth Circuit has vacated approval of a class action settlement since 2003.

"This is a landmark decision," said Ted Frank, the founder of CCAF who argued the appeal. "The Court explicitly upheld the principle that the absence of explicit collusion is not enough for a court to approve a settlement when the attorneys have negotiated a self-serving settlement at the expense of their clients. It is important because the Court identified as problematic several tactics attorneys use to protect proposed fee awards from scrutiny such as 'clear sailing' clauses that prohibit defendants from challenging proposed fee awards and 'kickers' that preclude the class from receiving any reduction in the fee award. The decision further emphasizes that any fee request based on 'lodestar' rates has to be cross-checked against benefits actually received by the class. It will now be much more difficult for attorneys to abuse the class action system to negotiate low-value settlements that provide handsome compensation for themselves."

The case is In re Bluetooth Headset Products Liability Litigation, No. 09-56683.


The Center for Class Action Fairness, founded in 2009, is a not-for-profit program that provides pro bono representation to consumers and shareholders aggrieved by class action attorneys who negotiate settlements that benefit themselves at the expense of their putative clients. It has won millions of dollars for class members over the last two years.

Coverage: Forbes, Point of Law, NLJ, Law 360 ($), Business Law Daily, LNL, Lawyers USA Online, Toothman, Trial Insider.

Oral argument in the Bluetooth case

The audio file of Monday's oral argument in the Ninth Circuit in the Bluetooth case is now on line. The panel consisted of circuit Judges Hawkins and Fisher and N.D. Ohio district court Judge Zouhary.

Briefing:

• Opening brief
• Plaintiff-appellees' brief
• Defendant-appellees' brief
• Reply brief

Oral argument scheduled in the Bluetooth case

The Ninth Circuit has scheduled oral argument in the Bluetooth case for Monday, February 7, 9 a.m., in the federal courthouse in Pasadena. (Five other cases are on the calendar, so I probably won't get my fifteen minutes until after 10 a.m.) I'm undefeated (well, ok, 1-0) in that courthouse.

The first time I ever visited the Pasadena courthouse was in the fall of 1992, when a memorable young law clerk in Alex Kozinski's chambers named Eugene Volokh quizzed me about the issue of toughening evidentiary standards for expert witnesses in what I think was the first law-clerk interview of the season for 1994-95. (That was the first attempt of the judiciary and the legal academy to create a cartel for the hiring of law clerks, and I unwittingly caused it to break down when I sent my resume out without consulting with the law school, and Judge Kozinski started calling people in for interviews, causing a chain reaction that unraveled everyone's plans.) Eugene, of course, went on to bigger and better things.

If you're in the DC area, and you're interested in putting in a few hours reading briefs and throwing questions at me on a moot court later this month, please drop me an email. (Friends from Kirkland & Ellis: sorry, you're adverse to me in this case, so you're not invited.)

Ninth Circuit appeal in Bluetooth - reply brief

CCAF filed its reply brief in the Bluetooth case yesterday.

Ninth Circuit appeal in Bluetooth - opposition briefs

Earlier this month, plaintiffs and defendants each filed appellees' briefs defending the district court's approval of the Bluetooth settlement against our appeal. We'll be filing our reply brief later this week; stay tuned.

Bluetooth case press coverage

Our appeal has drawn attention from the National Law Journal, Overlawyered, Bob Dorigo Jones, California Civil Justice, Hans Bader, and AetherCzar. It was previously covered in Forbes.

Ninth Circuit appeal in Bluetooth

Today, we filed our Ninth Circuit appellate brief in the Bluetooth case, No. 09-56683. Our objection in this case was previously covered by Forbes and the National Law Journal.

CD California ruling approving Bluetooth settlement

The court's opinion is not quite a rubber-stamp of the defendants' proposed order and opinion, but it's pretty close. The court distinguishes precedent by claiming the cases we cited did not have severable attorneys' fees, but that (1) is a distinction without an economic difference and (2) is not universally true. The attorneys' fees were severable in Crawford v. Equifax, for example, as that settlement obliged only the payment of "reasonable" fees to be set by the court.

The critical issue of the fees to the attorneys has not yet been decided.

July 6 Bluetooth hearing

Monday, I attended the fairness hearing for the Bluetooth MDL settlement. UCLA math professor and client Henry Towsner was in the audience.

Dozens of people filed objections with the court, but, aside from the CCAF objection, only 12 of those successfully navigated the procedural maze to file a "valid" objection. Out of those, we were the only ones to cite precedent in favor of our objection. And we were the only ones to make an appearance in court, which suggests that this would've been a quiet rubber-stamp without our appearance and filing.

After hearing from all sides, Judge Fischer took the position that settlements are favored outcomes in a world of crowded dockets, and, even if the case is meritless and unlikely to succeed, it is preferable to allow defendants to get out of the case by paying a small cy pres sum, since the plaintiffs would get nothing if the case was thrown out. The judge ruled that the settlement was fair and adequate, and approved the settlement. She postponed a ruling on the attorneys' fees (despite my argument that the fairness of the settlement was inextricably tied to the fee award). The plaintiffs have until August 5 to submit additional material in support of their fee request; the defendants will file a proposed order by July 20.

This is a settlement that is arguably fair if the fees are knocked down sufficiently so that the attorneys are not receiving more than their putative clients; though the plaintiffs negotiated a "clear sailing" clause where the defendants will not object to fees, the fee request was severable from the rest of the settlement. We will know more in August or September.

Bluetooth Reply Brief

This morning we filed this reply brief in the Bluetooth Headset Products Liability Litigation. The hearing is July 6, a week from today.

If you read our first brief, you may recall that we argued that the new warnings mandated by the settlement were not materially different than those that class members already had when they bought their headset. (I was personally impressed that objectors held on to their thin-paper manuals and knew where to find them.) Much to my surprise, plaintiffs agreed, but claimed that the warnings were that good because of the lawsuit--a surprising concession that the settlement isn't creating any prospective relief.

And now some inside baseball: this case possibly presents an interesting choice-of-law question. California state law recognizes the "catalyst" theory for recovery of attorneys' fees. As such, Erie demands that a California-state-law case apply the catalyst theory, though that theory is rejected by federal common law in cases such as Buckhannon. But can one apply that substantive California law in fifty-state class action? Shutts would say no, but there is a D.N.J. decision out there, Chin v. DaimlerChrysler, that says yes--but without mentioning Shutts.

In this case, it's moot: the plaintiffs don't qualify for catalyst theory fees even under California law, and didn't even ask for recovery based on a catalyst theory. So I wouldn't expect the judge to reach it, but there's a law review article out there for someone ambitious.

Opposition briefing in Bluetooth

The plaintiffs and defendants each filed their briefs yesterday in the $0-for-the-class and $800k-for-the-attorneys settlement. Note that defendants were required to pay $1M in notice costs. Yet still, there were class members who did not hear of the settlement until my Overlawyered post publicizing it--a post that comes in for some ad hominem criticism in the plaintiffs' briefs, a classic case of pounding the table.

• Plaintiffs' motion for final approval
• Garcia affidavit
• Plaintiffs' motion for attorneys' fees
• Defendants' brief in support of settlement

In re Bluetooth Headset Product Liability Litigation

"If you bought a Bluetooth headset between June 30, 2002 and February 19, 2009, the settlement of a class action lawsuit may affect your rights." And if you want to know why your instruction manuals are overwhelmed with worthless wacky warnings, the settlement of this class action lawsuit may explain why.

Overlawyered has covered other ridiculous failure-to-warn-of-hearing-loss consumer-fraud lawsuits, but missed this one filed by the Garcia Law Firm, which was eventually consolidated with twenty-six other lawsuits against Motorola, Plantronics, and GN Netcom (which makes "Jabra" headsets) alleging that the insufficiently advertised risk of hearing loss from turning the volume up too high on a Bluetooth headset was consumer fraud meriting damages, yadda yadda, because, without a wacky warning, people might not know that loud sounds can cause hearing loss.

The settlement is remarkable: the defendants are spending approximately $1.2 million to give notice of the settlement that offers $0 to the class. That's, right $0. There's a total $100,000 cy pres award to four charities selected by the plaintiffs, and the manufacturers agree to provide a wacky warning that "Exposure to loud noise from any source for extended periods of time may temporarily or permanently affect your hearing." Only lawyers like warnings like this. Such warnings make the rest of us worse off; when people see so many warnings "crying 'wolf,'" it inures them to meaningful warnings.

In return, the trial lawyers are going to ask for up to $850,000 in fees and costs—a remarkable infinite-percentage attorneys' fee. Nine representative plaintiffs will ask the court for a total of $12,000 in "incentive" payments.

On June 3, CCAF filed filed an objection on behalf of seven clients.

And anyone in Los Angeles July 6 who wants to watch the hearing, please join in the fun. I've got my plane ticket.