US Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit McKnight vs Hinojosa, No. 21-16623, 2022 WL 17333820 (9th Cir. 30 November 2022) ruled that the proposed class action settlement was a “coupon settlement” and therefore imposed an award of attorneys’ fees on class counsel. We have considered whether we are subject to any restrictions that may apply. Under the Class Action Fairness Act (CAFA). 28 USC Section 1712. Congress enacted CAFA in part because “class members have little or no remuneration, including settlements in which attorneys are heavily paid while class members are left with coupons or other fees of little or no value.” It was out of concern about settlements receiving value.” CAFA, Pub. L. No. 109-2, § 2, 119 Stat. 4 (2005). Section 1712 applies only if the settlement is a “coupon settlement,” and he addresses this concern in two ways. First, under § 1712(e), courts must apply “strict scrutiny” when approving settlement agreements granting coupon relief. Ditto. Second, courts must apply a “particular set of rules” to attorney fees awards in coupon settlements under § 1712(a)-(c). in the HP inkjet printer lawsuit.716 F.3d 1173, 1178 (9th Cir. 2013).
The Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit held that the parties’ settlement was not a coupon settlement, affirmed the district court’s decision to award attorneys’ fees, and affirmed that the district court applied the percentage-of-funds method and requested Reduced award of $8,125,000 to $5,689,440. 17.5% of the fund’s value and 2.9 times his for the Roadster. It represents the value of work performed based on the number of hours reasonably spent and a reasonable hourly rate for that work.
case background
of McKnight vs Hinojosa, the Ninth Circuit has heard a consolidated appeal of plaintiffs-appellants representing the class that brought breach of contract and consumer law claims against Uber Technologies Inc. and Raiser LLC (Uber), stating, charges,” and claimed misrepresentation of security measures. , background checks and other measures taken to provide safety to our customers.
The parties reached an initial settlement in 2016 and the District Court approved an amended settlement in August 2019 (Settlement). The District Court subsequently approved and certified a settlement class of approximately 22.4 million members. This class included anyone who used his Uber ride-hailing service in the United States between January 1, 2013 and January 31, 2016 and was charged a safe ride. The Settlement provides both monetary and injunctive relief, including $32.5 million to a “Non-Reverting Settlement Fund,” with Class Members paying $0.25 each for an initial Safe Ride Fee, then received $0.05 for each fee, and the average class member received $1.07. The settlement funds were to be paid for her in three stages. First, submit an invoice and pay with cash, PayPal, or eCheck. The second as a credit to her Uber account. Third, a year later, Uber attempts to transfer unused credit to the class member’s Uber payment account for her one-time use. As an injunctive relief, the settlement barred Uber from charging safety fares and limited representations Uber could make regarding driver background check policies and the safety of the service.
The District Court approved the settlement, reasoning that the CAFA Attorney Fees Limitation that applies to the Coupon Settlement does not apply. The district court therefore applied the percentage law of the fund and awarded the fee, but the settlement amount fell near the bottom of the “range of possible approvals,” and the Roadster cross-checked “even the reduced fee.” Reduced arbitration. This award gave a healthy multiplier to the actual fees incurred. The three opponents appealed, alleging that the district court erred in failing to apply his CAFA’s attorney’s fees provision and abused its discretion in calculating the award. 9 The Circuit Court confirmed this.
Ninth Circuit Court Decision
On appeal, the Ninth Circuit addressed the applicability of CAFA’s coupon provisions to class action settlement agreements. The court In re Online DVD-Rental Antitrust Litig., 779 F.3d 934, 950-951 (9th Cir. 2015) to determine whether certain instances of class relief qualify for coupon settlements. Before redeeming the credit, determine how flexible it is, such as (2) whether the credit is only valid for “certain products or services” and (3) whether it expires or is freely transferable. do you offer sexuality?
The court applied the first of these factors to justify the class payment, which provided a number of “Safe Rides Fees” worth approximately $1.07 each class member incurred. The court reasoned that the first factor prevented defining credit as a coupon. This is because class members can claim rewards in cash up front and even receive cash if they don’t use the credits.Second Online DVD Factors in favor of interpreting the Settlement as a Coupon Settlement were weighted because the credit is valid for Uber services. The court determined that the third factor that prevented the settlement from reaching success was the coupon settlement. This is because the credits are non-transferable and expire after one year, but the credits turned into cash without further action and had no blackout date. However, relying on case law, the court reasoned that there was no decisive factor.
Ultimately, the Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit reasoned that the district court’s conclusion that the settlement was not a coupon settlement was not erroneous. Online DVD Favorable Factors Characterizing the Settlement as a Non-Coupon Settlement within the meaning of CAFA. The court acknowledged that the amount to be distributed was “modest and insignificant,” but held that this was not negative. is disproportionate to the value of the settlement, but is properly subject to a fair trial, except that it does not determine whether the settlement is a coupon settlement. As such, the court affirmed the district court’s award of attorneys’ fees, holding that the district court did not err in awarding fees for time spent pursuing a failed settlement. As the final settlement merely amended the initial settlement, the time spent negotiating was not considered redundant or unnecessary. We have determined that it is reasonable to reduce the fee arbitrage below the 25% benchmark. This is because the degree of success is marginal and arbitrating a 25% benchmark would overcompensate Class Counsel compared to the Roadster.
Attorney’s Fees and Additional Explanations
CAFA’s attorney fees limit was reduced from a requested fee of $8,125,000 (25% of the fund’s face value and a Roadster multiplier of $1,961,905 at 4.14) to $5,689,440, or 15.5% of the fund’s face value and 2.9 times the fund’s face value. I was. Roadster.
The Ninth Circuit held that the district court did not abuse its discretion in calculating the fee award. Because, in the Roadster’s cross-check, even the reduced fare winnings gave a healthy multiplier to the fare actually incurred. “
It is important to analyze the adequacy of class action compensation rulings by considering the criteria outlined in the Ninth Circuit’s decision.
