The Kroll Lens: Monitoring Class Action Settlements–2024, Volume X

As to certification under Rule 23(a), the Court found a class of over 1 million members to be sufficiently numerous, and that commonality was met by the class sharing the same factual and legal issues. Likewise, typicality was found to exist from Plaintiffs’ claims being premised on the same practice as the whole class. For adequacy, the Court found no conflicts and echoed the fairness analysis as proof of counsel’s diligence. The Court also found Rule 23(b)(2) satisfied, in that the proposed injunctive relief applied to the whole class.

Turning to notice, the Court considered the argument that notice is not required for classes under Rule 23(b)(2), citing 9th Circuit precedent. While the Court agreed that no individual notice would be required since the relief was to provide cessation of the offending practice, the Court also noted that other circuits had found notice not required for settlements seeking only injunctive relief and with only non-monetary claims at issue. However, the Court concluded that Plaintiff was still required to serve notices under CAFA to government officials and required settlement information to be posted on counsel’s website prior to final approval, citing a 9th Circuit case approving the same approach for informational value.

In terms of the fairness of the settlement, the Court first looked at Rule 23(e)(2) factors. It found no question as to adequate representation by counsel, arms-length negotiation through a mediator, and lack of collusion, and found the $160 per claimant payout to be relief above the typical recovery in TCPA cases.

The Court also looked at the 11th Circuit’s Bennett factors and briefly noted all such favored approval, with the parties having had opportunity to sufficiently weigh the merits and litigation risks in the case.

The Court also found the motion for attorney’s fees unopposed and granted the motion.