18th Annual Workplace Class Action Report - 2022 Edition

Annual Workplace Class Action Litigation Report: 2022 Edition 707 attorneys’ fees included in the settlement included a disproportionate distribution of the settlement funds. The Court likewise determined that the proposed maximum of $725,000 in attorneys’ fees and $5,000 service awards for the named Plaintiffs, without any monetary relief for the rest of the class, was not appropriate for resolution of the claims asserted. Further, the settlement agreement contained a provision wherein if the Court awarded less than the maximum amounts, Defendant could recoup the funds. The Court concluded that the motion for preliminary approval failed to show that the case was so weak that Plaintiffs’ request for monetary relief be entirely removed. The Court also granted the motion to intervene, finding that Hayes’ claims substantially overlapped with Plaintiffs’ claims, and that the motion was filed in a timely manner once Hayes found out that the settlement would adversely affect his own interests. In Re Apple Inc. Device Performance Litigation, 2021 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 50550 (N.D. Cal. March 17, 2021). Plaintiffs, a group of consumers, filed a class action alleging that Defendant designed its software updates to slow down some phone models. Plaintiffs specifically alleged their devices shut down even though the batteries were more than 30% charged and that software updates did not adequately correct the problems The parties ultimately settlement the matter. After the Court granted preliminary settlement approval and issues notice to class members, the parties requested final settlement approval. The Court granted the motion. Under the terms of the settlement, Defendant agreed to pay up to $500 million to the class and $80.6 million in attorneys’ fees. The Court granted final class certification for settlement purposes to a class consisting of: “all former or current U.S. owners of iPhone 6, 6 Plus, 6s, 6s Plus, 7, 7 Plus, and SE devices running iOS 10.2.1 or later (for iPhone 6, 6 Plus, 6s, 6s Plus, and SE devices) or iOS 11.2 or later (for iPhone 7 and 7 Plus devices), and who ran these iOS versions before December 21, 2017.” Id . at *27. The Court held that the settlement was warranted because it was fair, adequate, and reasonable under Rule 23(e), particularly as it was reached after extensive discovery of over a million pages of documents, multiple depositions, and a mediation. The Court also reasoned that the expense, complexity, and likely duration of further litigation weighed in favor of the settlement, and the amount provided in the settlement was within the range of reasonableness as it provided each class member with at least $25 for each eligible phone and payments to class representatives and class counsel. Further, the Court determined that there were few objections to the settlement terms for such a large class action. For these reasons, the Court found final settlement approval to be appropriate, and it granted the motion. In Re EpiPen Epinephrine Injection Marketing, Sales Practices And Antitrust Litigation, 2021 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 224272 (D. Kan. Nov. 17, 2021). Plaintiffs filed a multi-district consumer class action alleging that Defendants Pfizer and Mylan illegally inflated EpiPen prices. The parties ultimately settled the matter and the Court previously had granted preliminary settlement approval. After notice to the class, Plaintiffs filed a motion for final approval of the settlement, and for awards of attorneys’ fees, expenses, and service awards. The Court granted the motion. The Court found that the settlement met each of the Rule 23(e)(2) requirements, as Plaintiffs and co-lead counsel represented the class adequately, the settlement was the product of an arm’s length negotiation, the relief provided by the settlement was adequate, and the settlement was fair to all class members. The Court also determined that no class members submitted any valid or meritorious objections to the settlement. Thus, the Court ruled that the settlement was fair, reasonable, and adequate and granted final approval pursuant to Rule 23. Plaintiffs’ sought attorneys’ fees of one-third of the settlement amount, costs, expenses of $3,232,990.56 to the Notice Administrator for implementation of the class notice plan, and an award of service awards of $5,000 to each of the 35 class representatives. Id . at *33-34. The Court decline to award all 35 of the requested service awards, and instead only approved service awards to Plaintiffs’ class representatives. The Court also found that the request for an award of attorneys’ fees was reasonable based on the results obtained, the complexity of the litigation, and the time and labor involved. As a result, the Court awarded attorneys’ fees of $115 million. The Court also ruled that the request for reimbursement of litigation costs was reasonable, and granted an award of costs of $9,661,379.25. The Court reasoned that the costs for the Notice Administrator were also a reasonable and necessary case expense. For these reasons, the Court granted final settlement approval, as well as the awards of attorneys’ fees and costs. Editor ’ s Note: At $115 million, the Court granted one of the largest fee awards of the year in this matter. In Re Flint Water Cases, 2021 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 11679 (E.D. Mich. Jan. 21, 2021). Plaintiffs, thousands of children, adults, property owners, and business owners who alleged they were exposed to lead, legionella , and