Earlier this month, the Ninth Circuit reversed approval of a class action settlement, finding several indications that the proposed settlement was the result of collusion between the parties and did not adequately serve the class. The case, Briseño et al. v. ConAgra Foods Inc., Case No. 19-56297 (9th Cir.), originally filed in 2011, centers around allegations that defendant ConAgra Food Inc., then-owner of Wesson Oil, falsely advertised its oil as “100% Natural” when in fact the oil contained ingredients made from GMOs.
After several years of litigation, plaintiffs successfully had a class certified under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23(b)(3). In November 2018, the parties reached a post-certification settlement. The parties agreed to both monetary and injunctive relief for the class. Specifically, the agreement provided that (1) each class member would receive $0.15 for each unit purchased; and (2) ConAgra would not market or advertise Wesson Oil as “natural” anymore (an easy feat, considering ConAgra had at that point already sold Wesson Oil to a separate third party). The settlement agreement also had a provision that Plaintiff would request, and ConAgra would not contest, $6.85 million in attorneys’ fees and expenses. Notably, attorneys’ fees would come directly from ConAgra, as opposed to from the class fund. As a result, any reduction to the fee by the court would benefit ConAgra, not the class.
Payments to the class members would be disbursed on a claims-made basis, however ConAgra did not have an obligation to send out direct notice to class members. Of the 15 million class members, only about .5% submitted a claim. As a result, the class would earn in total less than $1,000,000.
One class member objected to the settlement on the grounds that, under the revised FRCP 23(e), the settlement was the result of collusion as class counsel ended up with roughly 88% of ConAgra’s payout in attorneys’ fees. The district court rejected the objector’s arguments, finding the settlement sufficiently fair. The objector appealed this decision to the Ninth Circuit. The appellate court, in a published opinion, reversed the district court’s approval of the settlement agreement, finding that the district court erred by failing to apply the new FRCP Rule 23(e)(2) standard, which requires scrutiny of the attorney fee arrangement when analyzing a settlement agreement for fairness.
As the Ninth Circuit notes, under the new Rule 23(e)(2), one factor the court must consider when assessing a proposed settlement is “the terms of any proposed award of attorney’s fees[.]” To properly assess this factor, a court must apply the heightened scrutiny established in In re Bluetooth Headset Products Liability Litigation, 654 F.3d 935 (9th Cir. 2011) to determine whether the division of funds between class members and class counsel was in fact fair. Specifically, In re Bluetooth sets up three facts that must be considered:
- Whether class counsel received a disproportionate distribution of the settlement;
- The existence of a “clear sailing arrangement” (a provision that states the defendant will not challenge class counsel’s fee request); and
- Whether the agreement had a “kicker” or “reverter” clause in which the defendant, rather than the class, would receive the remaining funds if the court reduced the agreed-upon attorneys’ fee amount.
Here, the appellate court found all three Bluetooth factors present. Notably, class counsel would receive nearly $7 million in attorneys’ fees, whereas the class would receive less than $1 million. Further, the proposed agreement contained both a clear sailing provision in which ConAgra agreed to not contest class counsel’s request for fees, as well as a reverter clause that held that any fees not awarded to class counsel would revert back to ConAgra as opposed to the class. The Ninth Circuit therefore reversed the district court’s approval of the settlement and remanded for further proceedings.
The Ninth Circuit’s decision confirms that courts will continue to closely evaluate the attorneys’ fees rewarded in a case when determining the fairness of a class action settlement. Further, the opinion confirms that the heightened level of scrutiny established in In re Bluetooth and solidified in the revised FRCP 23(e)(2) will apply to post-class certification settlement agreements as well as pre-certification agreements.
- Partner
Cate represents California employers in responding to a wide-range of employment claims and minimizing litigation risk. Her clients include small and medium-sized employers in the hospitality, retail, media, security, and ...
Subscribe
Recent Posts
- New Cal/OSHA Indoor Heat Standards Require New Prevention Measures and Written Prevention Plan | By: Joanne Warriner
- California Bans All Plastic Bags at Grocery Stores | By: Pooja S. Nair
- FTC’s Nationwide Ban on Non-Compete Agreements Stopped by Federal Court Ruling | By: Cate A. Veeneman
- Can the IRS Obtain a Receiver to Help Collect Taxes Owed? | By: Peter Davidson
- Severing Unconscionable Terms in Employment Arbitration Agreements | By: Jared W. Slater
- Can You Collaterally Attack a Receiver’s Appointment?
- Changes to PAGA Create Opportunities for Employers to Minimize Penalties | By: Tanner Hosfield
- Overbroad Employment Arbitration Agreements Will Not Be Enforced in California | By: Jared W. Slater
- LA Al Fresco Deadline Extended | By: Pooja S. Nair
- The Battle for Supremacy: Federal Arbitration Act v. California Arbitration Act | By: Jared W. Slater
Blogs
Contributors
Archives
- October 2024
- September 2024
- August 2024
- July 2024
- June 2024
- May 2024
- April 2024
- March 2024
- February 2024
- January 2024
- December 2023
- November 2023
- October 2023
- September 2023
- August 2023
- July 2023
- June 2023
- May 2023
- April 2023
- March 2023
- February 2023
- January 2023
- December 2022
- November 2022
- October 2022
- September 2022
- August 2022
- July 2022
- June 2022
- May 2022
- April 2022
- March 2022
- February 2022
- January 2022
- December 2021
- November 2021
- October 2021
- September 2021
- August 2021
- July 2021
- June 2021
- May 2021
- April 2021
- March 2021
- February 2021
- January 2021
- December 2020
- November 2020
- October 2020
- September 2020
- August 2020
- July 2020
- June 2020
- May 2020
- April 2020
- March 2020
- February 2020
- January 2020
- December 2019
- November 2019
- October 2019
- September 2019
- August 2019
- July 2019
- June 2019
- May 2019
- March 2019
- February 2019
- January 2019
- November 2018
- October 2018
- September 2018
- August 2018
- July 2018
- June 2018
- May 2018
- April 2018
- February 2018
- January 2018
- December 2017
- November 2017
- October 2017
- September 2017
- August 2017
- July 2017
- June 2017
- May 2017
- April 2017
- March 2017
- February 2017
- January 2017
- December 2016
- November 2016
- October 2016
- September 2016
- August 2016
- July 2016
- June 2016
- May 2016
- April 2016
- January 2016
- December 2015
- November 2015
- October 2015
- September 2015
- August 2015
- July 2015
- June 2015
- May 2015
- April 2015
- March 2015
- February 2015
- January 2015
- December 2014
- November 2014
- October 2014
- September 2014
- August 2014
- July 2014
- June 2014
- May 2014
- April 2014
- March 2014
- February 2014
- January 2014