Larsen v. Trader Joe’s Co., No. 11-cv-05188, 2014 WL 3404531
(N.D. Cal. July 11, 2014)
This is a final settlement approval of claims based on
products labeled “All Natural” or “100% Natural,” when they allegedly contained
synthetic ingredients. The settlement
provided for the discontinuance of the use of those terms on the products, and
created a settlement fund of $3.375 million.
Proof of purchase entitled a class member to full reimbursement, while
absence thereof allowed reimbursement for up to 10 products. Leftover amounts were to be distributed in
the form of products to cass members.
Notable here are the claim rates: As of June 2014, class members made 59,830
claims representing a value of $1,906,884,75. Twenty-three members opted out and 18
objected. The court here rejected the
objections and granted the attorney fees requested of $950,000, or 28% of the
settlement fund as consistent with the lodestar and the success achieved. The remaining amount in the fund to be
distributed as product was about $55-85,000.
Some observations: as to the strength of the case, the court
noted that “recent decisions have made class certification in food labeling
cases an uncertainty.” Given the
uncertainties and risks, the settlement was reasonable for both sides. Plus, the settlement fund was represented to
be 50% of what would be available had the case gone successfully to trial. (Although wouldn’t the lawyers get paid
separately in that circumstance?) It was
also large enough to compensate all the claimants. This, plus the change in labels, discernibly
benefited class members.
In addition, the size of the claimant pool weighed in favor of
finding the settlement favorable. And the fact that there were a few opt-outs
and objectors indicates that class members read the notice and understood it
enough to make an informed decision about whether to participate.
The court rejected objections that the suit was frivolous;
it had already decided that the claims were meritorious enough to proceed with
discovery, which was what then produced the settlement:
Objections directed to the merits
of the claim are objections on behalf of Trader Joe’s and not the class. The
objectors referenced above disagree with this lawsuit as a matter of principle.
While I understand this perspective, in determining whether the settlement is
fair, adequate and reasonable, I am not acting as a fiduciary to the defendant,
which is represented by able counsel and capable of making decisions to protect
its own interests.
The court also rejected objections based on the idea that
the bulk of the settlement would be distributed in the form of products, which
was disproved by the claim numbers.
(Interestingly, the court doesn’t say whether the claim rate represented
a high percentage of actual purchasers.
The parties represented that the fund was equal to 50% of Trader Joe’s profits
on the products. But we’d need more information to understand what that implied
about the percentage of purchasers who made a claim.)
No comments:
Post a Comment