Mid-September update

• Procter & Gamble (but not the plaintiffs) filed an en banc petition seeking further review of the 2-1 decision striking down the ludicrous attorney-benefit-only settlement in Dry Max Pampers. CCAF filed its opposition yesterday.


• Similarly problematic to the Dry Max Pampers settlement is the case of Richardson v. L'Oreal, a pathetic lawsuit and settlement that seems to have forum-shopping shenanigans. CCAF attorney Adam Schulman filed an objection on behalf of a class member.


• One tactic class counsel engages in is to attempt to scare off objections with abusive discovery requests. This happened in L'Oreal, where class counsel purported to try to subpoena every attorney working for CCAF. Less than one business day after the subpoena was served and we sent this letter, class counsel withdrew all of the subpoenas. We're not scared of discovery: we follow the rules, and as Citigroup showed, class counsel almost always has something to hide. In this case, for example, it's doubtful the class representatives ever had any real input in the settlement process, and some might not even have standing; and I'd wager there's more than a colorable chance that there are documents existing where the parties agree that they don't want to be in the Ninth Circuit because of Bluetooth. But we're leanly staffed, and offensive and defensive discovery can be time-consuming and take away from the fun appellate stuff we like to do. If you're a litigator who'd like to be on our pro bono SWAT team call list the next time someone tries to play discovery games with us (subject of course to conflict checks and the like when the occasions arise), please drop me a line. We're engaging in fundraising so that we can be more aggressive with offensive discovery in future cases.


• We won $26.7 million for shareholders in the Citigroup case, but we think we can win even more on appeal. Another objector appealed anyway, so we're not adding any delay. We filed a notice of appeal yesterday. [Litigation Daily]

CCAF in today's New York Times

The Adam Liptak article also generously cites my Congressional testimony on cy pres. Earlier: Marek v. Lane; Dry Max Pampers.

We maintain a complete set of our press coverage. Have we forgotten something? Drop us a line.

In addition, when I started doing this in 2009, I joked that there were only a dozen cases worth reading. That number is way up in 2013. We'd like to take some credit, given seven precedential appellate victories under CCAF's belt, and a number of good district-court and appellate decisions based on our litigation or on precedents we created. We've started a web page on the subject (which will be helpful for others wanting to object or design courses on the subject); happy to take suggestions if we left something important out.

We'd like to make our website a little nicer. If you have a good design sense and happen to want to provide us some pro bono web work to set us up a system that we can easily maintain, drop us a line.

Sixth Circuit victory: In re Dry Max Pampers Litigation

A great opinion protecting class members against predatory attorneys. Congratulations to CCAF attorney Adam Schulman (Georgetown Law '10), who won his first appellate oral argument.

Details at Point of Law. Earlier on this blog.

Press and blog coverage: Fisher @ Forbes; Adler @ Volokh; Bloomberg; Wolfman 1; Wolfman 2; Cincinnati Business Courier; ABA Journal; WSJ Law Blog ($); Litigation Daily ($); Law360 ($). And a local tv news report that demonstrates why watching tv news makes you stupider.

Law360 also runs a lengthy thinkpiece analyzing a run of our recent cases, calling our results "impressive."

October and November doings

In addition to our Supreme Court amicus and our MagSafe appellate brief, we've kept busy over the last two months.

• We had oral arguments in the Second, Sixth, and Ninth Circuits on the Blessing v. Sirius XM, Pampers Dry Max, and HP Inkjet appeals. Only Inkjet is available online.
• The district court ruled against us in Johnson & Johnson after some additional briefing; we've appealed, and (assuming that the court orders more than a token amount of attorneys' fees; the fee award has not yet been made) will raise the question of first impression of whether securities lawyers who regularly rely upon the efficient market hypothesis can ask a court to rely upon an expert opinion contradicting it when it is inconvenient for their theory of attorney-fee recovery.
• We filed our reply brief in the Online DVD appeal.
• We filed our reply brief in the Texas Frontier Oil appeal over a $0 settlement, which has gotten some press attention. Oral argument is scheduled in Houston in January 16. I was a Bellaire debater, but this is my first time in a Texas court.
• $2.7 million was paid to class members $3.93 at a time in the Classmates case. This is paltry, but more than the $56,000 or so class counsel was going to be happy with had we not successfully. objected. [Ars Technica]

We filed interesting objections in two new cases in California federal courts over the last few days, and I'll discuss over the course of the week.

May update

• A disappointing loss in Cobell v. Salazar, the first time I lost a federal appeal I've argued. We're still evaluating our options. Lots of links and analysis at Point of Law.
• Briefing and oral argument in Robert F. Booth Trust v. Crowley. I'm looking forward to the Seventh Circuit opinion.
• Odd shenanigans in Brazil v. Dell: see Point of Law; Reuters coverage; Reuters follow-up coverage.
• We completed Sixth Circuit briefing in the Pampers Dry Max case, and will discuss in a future post.
• The district court approved the Costco "hot fuel" settlement, though it at least refused to credit the junk economics expert; several other defendants are settling, and, if they're similar settlements where the benefits go entirely to the class counsel, we'll file objections there, too. Some objectors have appealed; we don't believe there's appellate jurisdiction yet. 

Sixth Circuit brief in Pampers Dry Max class action

Details at Point of Law. Fortunately, Procter & Gamble is not my client, as they will be exceedingly unimpressed that we mortifyingly spelled their name wrong throughout the brief. At least the law is right.

Some updates

• Yesterday, we filed the opening brief in our HP Inkjet Ninth Circuit appeal. Details at Point of Law.

• The district court approved the $0 settlement in Pampers. The attorneys will receive $2.7 million. We've appealed to the Sixth Circuit.

• The district court approved the Brazil v. Dell settlement. There have been about $0.5 million of claims, and the attorneys are to receive $6 million. We're going to appeal to the Ninth Circuit, since this pretty clearly contradicts Bluetooth. Thanks to Kyle Graham for covering the fairness hearing.

• The plaintiffs have asked for a $200,000 appeal bond in Blessing v. Sirius XM, the case we've appealed to the Second Circuit where the attorneys got $13 million and the class got worthless coupons that the court refused to call coupons. We filed an opposition to the motion for appeal bond. The motion is entertaining: the plaintiffs complain that I've previously objected in several other cases, but if you look at their list, we won most of those objections. 

• Blogosphere coverage of yesterday's Wall Street Journal article: Ribstein; Overlawyered; Mass Tort Litigation Blog; WSJ Law Blog.

• Business Law Daily covers the CEI amicus in Cobell v. Salazar.

Welcome, Wall Street Journal readers

Welcome to those of you who found this page after reading the Wall Street Journal profile. The Journal also discussed our Sirius XM objection. Other articles about CCAF can be found on my personal website. Join our Facebook page to stay updated on what we're up to. (Later today, I'll be posting our Ninth Circuit brief on the HP Inkjet printer coupon settlement, where the attorneys got $2.1 million, and the class got coupons only usable at HP.com—which charges far more than other Internet vendors, making it more expensive to use the coupons than not to use the coupons.)

I should note the story does not give enough credit to the attorneys working with me; for example, Frank Bednarz (now a much better-paid patent litigator in BigLaw) argued the Honda case, and Dan Greenberg argued the West Publishing, Kellogg, and Hertz cases. Adam Schulman, a 2010 Georgetown Law grad, just got his first district-court argument a month ago in the Pampers case, which, after a district-court approval, will generate an interesting Sixth Circuit appeal on the scope of Rule 23(b)(2) and the permissibility of big attorney-fee awards in $0 settlements.

Pampers Dry Max class action settlement objection

This week, we objected to a $0 settlement of the Pampers Dry Max class action that proposes paying $2.7 million to the lawyers. More details at Point of Law. Adam Schulman will argue at the fairness hearing in federal court in Cincinnati next month.