Posts Tagged ‘class action settlements’

iPod nano scratch settlement: count him out

Massachusetts lawyer and blogger Peter Morin, who has guest-blogged here on more than one occasion, is one of the members of the class entitled to participate in the settlement of class action claims over scratched Apple iPod nano units. He sent the following letter:

February 20, 2009

Apple iPod nano Cases
Claims Administrator
P.O. Box 6104
Novato, CA 94948-6104

Dear Sir:

I have received a Notice of Class Action Settlement For Uncoated First Generation iPod nanos. My control number is xxxxxxxxxxx.

I wish to submit my objection to the terms of settlement.

I have been the recipient of more than a few similar Notices during the past twenty years, but this is the stupidest b—s— I have ever witnessed.

I have owned a first generation nano (“uncoated” ) from the inception of its release. It is one of the most reliable and attractive devices I had ever owned (until the most recent design, which is gorgeous). The fact that a group of class action lawyers would sue Apple on behalf of some “aggrieved” group of nano owners because the device might get a little scratched up without the use of a cover is beyond absurd. It is insanity.

According to the Notice, in order to qualify for a fund payment, I “must have experienced scratching of [my] iPod nano that impaired [my] use or enjoyment of it.”

Impaired my use or enjoyment of it? This must be a joke. Is a federal judge to believe that a bit of scratching on this device is going to reasonably impair someone’s enjoyment of it? What does one do, sit and stare at his nano, beholding its sleekness and polish? Obviously not. It is tucked inside sweaty pockets in gyms, in classes, on subways. It is not an item to display, except to the most insanely vain. It is an item to store and play music. That it does, in a most reliable and effective fashion. How could such a class be certified?

I wish to make one final point.

As asinine as it is to claim that one’s enjoyment of the nano is “impaired” by a few scratches upon it (I for one considered the scratches the equivalent of battle scars), it pales against the idea that some group of lawyers would actually be paid the gargantuan sum of $4.5 million for perpetuating this idiocy.

It would be my preference that every lawyer participating in the group of Plaintiffs’ Counsel be marched into a Shea Stadium full of satisfied iPod owners and pelted with the electronic detritus of their choice. I predict that the “uncoated” iPod nano will not be among them.

Count me out!

Respectfully,
Peter B. Morin

“PTSD Damages For A Non-Event”

We briefly mentioned the other day the remarkable litigation over a laptop theft which (it seemed at the time) might have led to a data breach imperiling the personal information of military veterans. The feared breach resulted in an emergency request to Congress for $160 million to provide credit counseling to veterans, and, more recently, a $20 million settlement of class-action claims brought against the Veterans Administration, based at least in part on allegations of emotional distress associated with the (unfounded, as it turned out) fear of identity theft. If you’re wondering who the biggest winner will be from all this, Bank Lawyer’s Blog is pleased to provide the answer.

Class action lawyers to be paid in gift cards

The client class members were to receive only gift cards, not cash, in the settlement with Windsor Fashions, a clothing retailer, so Los Angeles Superior Court Judge Brett Klein thought it only fair to provide that Yorba Linda attorney Neil B. Fineman be paid his fee with “12,500 ten-dollar Windsor Fashions gift cards.” (Metropolitan News-Enterprise via California Civil Justice Blog) (& welcome Megan McArdle readers).

February 1 roundup

  • A “retired Reserve captain is threatening to sue her local California school board if the board’s members do not address her by her military title” [Navy Times, Popehat]
  • Members revolt at Florida bar’s selling their email addresses to marketers; general counsel of bar suggests they maintain multiple email addresses [Daily Business Review]
  • “Panel Upholds $17M Attorney Fee Award, Cites Bad-Faith Patent Litigation by Drug Companies” [NLJ; fees awarded to Takeda Chemical Industries against Mylan Laboratories and Alphapharm Pty. Ltd.]
  • Much of what you think you know about the Lilly Ledbetter Fair Pay Act is wrong [Stuart Taylor, Jr./National Journal; Point of Law, more]
  • Not only prejudicial, but a whiskery urban legend to boot: fictional “Winnebago tale” (man thinks cruise control function will drive RV for him, sues after crash) makes its way into an Australian lawyer’s courtroom argument [Rees v. Bailey Aluminium Products]
  • Posner was scathing about the class action lawyers’ conflicts of interest in the Mirfasihi v. Fleet Mortgage Co. case, but Max Kennerly thinks the judge got the case wrong [Litigation and Trial, earlier]
  • Fight erupts over fee split in Blue Cross eating-disorder class action settlement [NJLJ, earlier]
  • “Many attorneys from both parties also marvel at the sheer number of lawyers Obama has picked so far” in staffing White House [Washington Post]

More on cosmetics giveaway settlement

Susan Taylor Martin writes in the St. Petersburg Times on problems with class-action settlements, including a recent one in Florida that seems basically to have pitted Florida drivers against Florida taxpayers (she quotes me on how this can empower lawyers to move money from our left pockets to our right pockets at a high overhead cost). She also reports on the national cosmetics giveaway that recently took place following a class-action antitrust suit (see Jan. 29, etc.) A highlight:

I also asked Saveri [San Francisco class-action attorney Guido Saveri, one of the lead counsel] if he thought the giveaway program had been rather loosely administered. Customers didn’t have to prove they were part of the class, and there was nothing to stop them from getting as many cosmetics as they could. The result: Stores quickly ran out and a lot of people who were members of the class didn’t get anything.

“I think it was very well administered,” Saveri said, a bit huffily. “Each person had to file a piece of paper that they were entitled to one product — whether you want to lie about it I can’t control that.”

Before we hung up I asked Saveri if any of his female relatives got free cosmetics. Turns out the giveaway was off limits to attorneys’ families.

But with $24 million, they can afford to shop at Neiman-Marcus. As for me, I’ll wait until L’Oreal goes on sale at my local CVS.

Back in November 2006, we called it a “no-blush, high-gloss, invisible-foundation antitrust class action”.

January 29 roundup

  • Free class-action swag if you bought department store cosmetics between 1994 and 2003; not that they’re giving away the very best stuff or anything [Tompkins/Poynter, California Civil Justice, WSJ Law Blog, settlement site] We’ve been covering the story for quite some time;
  • Law school “can be a financial disaster” for unwary students [Law and More] Law schools not immune from economic downturn [Above the Law]
  • Bruce Bawer on Dutch prosecution of Islam-criticizer Geert Wilders [City Journal]
  • More on possible passenger suits after the miracle Hudson-landing USAir Flight #1549 [USA Today, earlier] Update: NY Post, NY Mag.
  • Bad news for patients and other living things: Sidney Wolfe of Public Citizen somehow got named to a key FDA panel during the late Bush administration [Point of Law, Postrel, Bernstein/Volokh, Hooper & Henderson/Forbes]
  • “Friends weren’t really trying to reach me!” class action against Reunion.com encounters another setback [Spam Notes]
  • Stand and deliver it back: “Minnesota: $2.6 Million in Red Light Camera Tickets Refunded” [The Newspaper]
  • Gary, Indiana’s is the last standing of what were once thirty “gun sales = nuisance” suits filed by cities; now Indiana high court says it can go to trial [Point of Law]

January 15 roundup

  • Judge Posner’s patience snaps in a class action: the case “is an example of the typical pathology of class action litigation, which is riven with conflicts of interest… The lawyers for the class could not concede the utter worthlessness of their claim because they wanted an award of attorneys’ fees.” Complete with a quotation from Leo Rosten about chutzpah [Mirfasihi v. Fleet Mortgage Corporation; NMC @ Folo, Courthouse News and again]
  • Erosion of mens rea prerequisite in criminal law should alarm all of us across left-right lines [Doug Berman on John Hasnas WLF paper]
  • “Federal drain law forces pool closings” [Boston Globe]
  • Gambling habit was no excuse for Woodbridge, Va. lawyer to forge clients’ signature on lawsuit settlements which he pocketed; Stephen Conrad drew a 11-year sentence after doing $4 million damage to clients. Also in Virginia, former Christiansburg attorney Gerard Marks pleaded guilty Nov. 13 to forgery [Va. Lawyers Weekly; earlier here, and, on Marks, first links here]
  • Plaintiff family in Anaheim, Calif. police-shooting lawsuit have an unusual demand: that statue of deceased victim be put up on Disneyland’s Main Street [Orange County Register]
  • Connecticut state lawyer who assumed bogus identity to send anonymous letter that got her boss fired, then claimed whistleblower protection, is let off with reprimand and nine hours of ethics training [Schwartz, earlier]
  • “Patent troll sues Oprah, Sony over online book viewing” [The Register; Illinois Computer Research, Scott Harris, etc.]
  • JetBlue incident at JFK: “240,000 dollars awarded to man forced to cover Arab T-shirt” [AFP/Yahoo, Raed Jarrar]

Members of client class filed $6.1 million in claims…

…and the judge hearing an attorneys’-fee petition in the TJX credit-card data-breach case reasoned that the lawyers didn’t really deserve $6.5 million in fees for achieving that result. The lawyers proposed, but the judge was unimpressed with, a theory that their suit had “made available” $200 million to the class, even if few class members stopped by to pick it up. Such sticklers, these judges can be. (Beck and Herrmann, Nov. 11). Related: Dec. 4, 2007.

“Nice Work If You Can Get It”

Berman DeValerio Pease and other class action lawyers in the settlement of a case against Xerox want reimbursement of about $500 an hour for time spent by temporary attorneys who say they were getting $35/ and $40/hour. “Documents in the Xerox case also suggest the plaintiff lawyers spread the markup on temp attorneys among themselves, sometimes in puzzling ways. Partners at Bernstein Litowitz, a big New York class action firm, spent less than 20 hours on the case, according to court reports. Yet the firm wants $7.5 million for the 15,000 hours” its temps put in. (Daniel Fisher, Forbes, Dec. 8). Eight years ago we recounted how Maryland tort magnate Peter Angelos was expecting to reap between $15,000 and $30,000 an hour on legal work a large chunk of which had been carried out by $12/hour lawyer temps.