Anderson v. Boyne USA, Inc., 2:21-cv-00095

Plaintiffs, including trustees and individual condo unit owners, sued Boyne USA, Inc. and related entities regarding their management of rental programs in several Montana condo-hotels.
The lawsuit asserted both individual and class claims seeking declaratory and injunctive relief and damages, and requested class certification under Fed. R. Civ. P. 23(b)(2) and (b)(3).
The classes certified included all past and present unit owners who participated in Boyne’s Rental Management Program for the specified condo-hotels.
A mediated settlement was reached, providing a monetary fund of over $18 million, structural changes to rental management, and governance terms for the associations.
Notice was given to class members, resulting in only one objection, which was resolved and withdrawn prior to final approval.
The court evaluated and approved the settlement, attorney’s fees (one-third of the fund), and incentive awards for class representatives, concluding the settlement was fair, reasonable, and adequate.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Fairness and scope of the class action settlement	Settlement provides adequate compensation, prospective relief, and resolves all claims properly.	Settlement is fair and negotiated at arms’ length.	Settlement agreement is fair, reasonable, and adequate.
Adequacy of notice to class members	Notice was sufficient and satisfied Due Process.	Notice was sufficient and met all requirements.	Notice satisfied Due Process and Rule 23 standards.
Attorneys’ fees and incentive awards	One-third contingency fee is reasonable and customary; service awards are justified.	No objection to fees or incentive awards.	Fees and service awards approved as reasonable.
Scope of class release and adequacy of representation	Release only affects claims with identical factual predicate; interests of both classes were represented.	Release is proper per the law; no unfairness.	Release is lawful and objections were resolved.

Hesse v. Sprint Corp., 598 F.3d 581 (9th Cir. 2010) (class action releases can only cover claims with an identical factual predicate as those litigated)
Williams v. Boeing Co., 517 F.3d 1120 (9th Cir. 2008) (limits on class action release scope)
Class Plaintiffs v. City of Seattle, 955 F.2d 1268 (9th Cir. 1992) (settlement release scope limited to factual predicate)
Staton v. Boeing Co., 327 F.3d 938 (9th Cir. 2003) (injunctive relief a relevant factor for fee determination)
Vizcaino v. Microsoft Corp., 290 F.3d 1043 (9th Cir. 2002) (percentage-of-recovery method for attorneys’ fees in class actions)