You might recall the settlement approval in Online DVD Antitrust Litigation we briefed back in 2012. A district court held that the Wal-Mart $12.03 "gift cards" the settlement awarded weren't "coupons," refused to apply the Class Action Fairness Act, and awarded fees based on the face value of the coupons.
On February 27, the Ninth Circuit, in a Judge Sidney Thomas opinion, affirmed.
Wait a second! careful readers exclaim, Didn't you already win that exact issue on appeal?!
Yep. Appellees made the same arguments about "settlement vouchers" and attorney-fee calculations in Redman v. RadioShack Corp., 768 F.3d 622 (7th Cir. 2014), and that court, in a Judge Posner opinion, rejected them in a lengthy and lively discussion that was widely discussed.
So what did the Ninth Circuit say to reject the contrary Seventh Circuit case?
Absolutely nothing. They didn't mention it once, though we filed a Rule 28(j) letter in September.
Was there another appellate precedent that they followed instead?
Nope. Some district courts make the same mistake that Redman criticized (though some don't), and the Ninth Circuit followed those cases without mentioning the others while creating a circuit split.
What now?
Well, we've asked for rehearing or rehearing en banc. If we don't get correction, we have an interesting circuit split to put before the Supreme Court in a certiorari petition.
Showing posts with label Redman v. Radioshack. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Redman v. Radioshack. Show all posts
Tuesday, March 17, 2015
Friday, October 10, 2014
Cy Pres You'll Read This
Learn about the state of cy pres law without having to pay for a CLE class!
Today, Washington Legal Foundation published a short and useful working paper authored by James M. Beck and Rachel B. Weil titled "Cy Pres" Awards: Is the End Near for a Legal Remedy With No Basis in Law?
The paper effectively summarizes recent litigation demonstrating courts' skepticism of such awards, wherein settlement funds are paid to third parties instead of to class members.
Beck and Weil highlight some CCAF-generated precedents, such as Chief Justice Roberts's statement in Marek v. Lane, 134 S. Ct. 8 (2013), the Third Circuit's opinion in In re Baby Prods. Antitrust Litig., 708 F.3d 163 (3d Cir. 2013), and the Seventh Circuit's opinion in Redman v. Radioshack Corp., ___ F.3d ___, 2014 U.S. App. LEXIS 18181, 2014 WL 4654477 (7th Cir. Sept. 19, 2014). (Credit is also due to Bexis, the blogging nom de guerre of Mr. Beck, whose post "Sunsetting Cy Pres" drew attention to the Redman ratio's applicability to cy pres remedies just one day after Redman v. Radioshack was decided.)
The rationale for having a defendant settle class members' claims by paying money to third parties is that it would be impossible to compensate the class members themselves. But it's a reverse Robin Hood, wherein money that belongs to the aggrieved nationwide mass of class members is taken and funneled to well-connected recipients, like the plaintiffs' lawyers' preferred local charities and alma maters. Sometimes, it isn't even true that class members can't be located!
What do you think about cy pres? How do you think it should be pronounced: see pray, or sigh pray?
Leave your comments below.
Today, Washington Legal Foundation published a short and useful working paper authored by James M. Beck and Rachel B. Weil titled "Cy Pres" Awards: Is the End Near for a Legal Remedy With No Basis in Law?
The paper effectively summarizes recent litigation demonstrating courts' skepticism of such awards, wherein settlement funds are paid to third parties instead of to class members.
Beck and Weil highlight some CCAF-generated precedents, such as Chief Justice Roberts's statement in Marek v. Lane, 134 S. Ct. 8 (2013), the Third Circuit's opinion in In re Baby Prods. Antitrust Litig., 708 F.3d 163 (3d Cir. 2013), and the Seventh Circuit's opinion in Redman v. Radioshack Corp., ___ F.3d ___, 2014 U.S. App. LEXIS 18181, 2014 WL 4654477 (7th Cir. Sept. 19, 2014). (Credit is also due to Bexis, the blogging nom de guerre of Mr. Beck, whose post "Sunsetting Cy Pres" drew attention to the Redman ratio's applicability to cy pres remedies just one day after Redman v. Radioshack was decided.)
The rationale for having a defendant settle class members' claims by paying money to third parties is that it would be impossible to compensate the class members themselves. But it's a reverse Robin Hood, wherein money that belongs to the aggrieved nationwide mass of class members is taken and funneled to well-connected recipients, like the plaintiffs' lawyers' preferred local charities and alma maters. Sometimes, it isn't even true that class members can't be located!
What do you think about cy pres? How do you think it should be pronounced: see pray, or sigh pray?
Leave your comments below.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
