Bezdek v. Vibram USA Inc.
79 F. Supp. 3d 324
D. Mass.2015Background
- Consumers filed consolidated nationwide class actions alleging Vibram misrepresented health benefits of FiveFingers footwear (sales Mar 21, 2008–May 27, 2014); claims included Mass. Gen. Laws ch. 93A and related state statutes.
- Proposed settlement: $3,750,000 non-reversionary fund to pay claims (refunds capped at $94/pair, pro rata), admin costs, attorneys’ fees, expenses, and $6,500 in incentive awards; injunctive relief restricting health-benefit advertising unless supported by reliable evidence.
- Notice program combined direct e-mail/postcard, publication in Runner’s World, online/mobile banner ads, and a settlement website; ~154,927 timely claims covering ~279,570 pairs were filed; only 23 opt-outs and 3 objections.
- Court conducted Rule 23 review: certified settlement class (numerosity, commonality, typicality, adequacy satisfied) and found predominance and superiority met for settlement purposes (price-premium theory of injury).
- After claims and deductions, the per-pair payout crystallized at approx. $8.44; court found the settlement fair, reasonable, and adequate and approved $937,500 (25%) in attorneys’ fees, $61,674.44 in expenses, and the requested incentive awards.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Class certification under Rule 23(a) and 23(b)(3) | Class is numerous, common issues (false advertising of health benefits), typical representatives, adequate counsel; predominance satisfied via price-premium theory | Defense disputed class treatment risks but did not oppose settlement certification for settlement purposes | Class certified for settlement: numerosity, commonality, typicality, adequacy, predominance, and superiority satisfied |
| Adequacy of notice and class response | Notice methods (direct and broad online/print publication) were reasonably calculated to reach class members; high claim rate shows effective notice | Objectors argued notice lacked sufficient detail to evaluate settlement | Notice found adequate and reasonably calculated; robust online and media reach and large claim response supported adequacy |
| Fairness/reasonableness of settlement (Rule 23(e)(2)) | Settlement provides immediate recoveries and injunctive relief; litigation risks (proof of price premium, damages methodology, expert discovery) favor compromise | Objectors argued monetary relief is minimal, injunctive relief illusory, and cy pres inappropriate | Settlement approved as fair, reasonable, adequate given litigation risks, reaction of class, discovery stage, and injunctive relief value; per-pair payout (~$8.44) acceptable under circumstances |
| Attorneys’ fees, expenses, & service awards | Counsel sought 25% of fund ($937,500), $61,674.44 expenses, $6,500 total incentive awards — within typical range and supported by lodestar check | Objectors claimed fees excessive given limited formal discovery and early settlement; raised concern over clear-sailing provision | Fees approved at 25% (benchmarked range), expenses and incentive awards allowed; court used lodestar as cross-check and found request reasonable and not collusive |
Key Cases Cited
- Reppert v. Marvin Lumber & Cedar Co., 359 F.3d 53 (1st Cir. 2004) (notice must be reasonably calculated to reach absent class members)
- Amchem Prods., Inc. v. Windsor, 521 U.S. 591 (1997) (heightened scrutiny for settlement-only class certification)
- Comcast Corp. v. Behrend, 133 S. Ct. 1426 (2013) (plaintiff must present classwide damages methodology to satisfy predominance)
- Wal-Mart Stores, Inc. v. Dukes, 131 S. Ct. 2541 (2011) (commonality requirement for class actions)
- Boeing Co. v. Van Gemert, 444 U.S. 472 (1980) (common fund doctrine permits attorneys’ fees from settlement fund)
- In re Thirteen Appeals Arising Out of the San Juan Dupont Plaza Hotel Fire Litig., 56 F.3d 295 (1st Cir. 1995) (discussing fee calculation methods and judicial discretion)