701 F. App'x 759
11th Cir.2017Background
- Plaintiff Chris Carter sued Taurus on behalf of a nationwide class alleging two defects in nine Taurus models: a "false safety" (guns can fire with manual safety engaged) and a "drop-fire" defect (guns can fire when dropped because they lack trigger-blade safeties). Carter experienced an accidental discharge when his gun fell from a holster.
- After extensive litigation and testing (plaintiff’s experts performed hundreds of drop tests; parties engaged in mediation), the parties negotiated a settlement covering a nationwide class of owners of the class guns.
- Settlement terms: class members may either (1) surrender a class gun for a cash payment of up to $200 (cash pool capped at $30 million) during a four-month claims period, or (2) obtain an enhanced lifetime warranty/exchange for a new model with a trigger-blade safety; Taurus agreed to pay up to $9 million (later modified to $8.3 million) in attorney’s fees and a $15,000 incentive award to Carter.
- District court preliminarily certified the Rule 23(b)(3) settlement class, approved notice, held fairness hearings (supplemental notice ordered due to objections), and ultimately approved the settlement and fee award over objections by three class members (Scheffler, Jordan, Glaviano), who appealed.
- Objectors challenged (inter alia) settlement fairness, collusion/clear-sailing on fees, valuation methodology used by plaintiff’s expert Dr. Safir, Carter’s standing/class certification, and a novel Second Amendment theory. The Eleventh Circuit affirmed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Appellate standing of nonnamed objectors | Objectors (Scheffler, Jordan, Glaviano) can appeal without intervening because they timely objected at fairness hearings | Taurus argued only parties or intervenors may appeal | Court applied Devlin and allowed appeal by objecting class members who did not opt out |
| Class representative standing & certification | Glaviano: Carter lacked actual injury; class not maintainable | Carter: alleged same injury as class; common questions predominate | Carter had standing; Rule 23(b)(3) certification proper (common issues predominate; settlement-only class management inquiry not required) |
| Settlement fairness & collusion (clear-sailing) | Objectors: settlement unfair (low cash, replacement guns inferior, avoidance of original warranty); clear-sailing indicates collusion | Parties: negotiated after extensive discovery/mediation; replacement models have trigger-blade safety; original warranty would not cover drop-fire claims | Settlement was fair, reasonable, and non-collusive given arm’s-length negotiations, factual record, and supplemental notice |
| Attorney’s fees amount | Objectors: fees should be based on actual payout to class (likely much less than $30M), not on the full $30M fund; clear-sailing influenced fees | Parties: fee may be percentage of common fund; Eleventh Circuit benchmark 20–30%; consider Johnson factors and overall settlement value including warranty | Fee award of $8.3M upheld as within benchmark (27.7% of $30M) and reasonable under Johnson factors |
Key Cases Cited
- Marino v. Ortiz, 484 U.S. 301 (procedural rule that only parties may appeal)
- Devlin v. Scardelletti, 536 U.S. 1 (nonnamed objecting class members may appeal without intervening)
- Amchem Prods., Inc. v. Windsor, 521 U.S. 591 (settlement-only class certification; manageability inquiry not required)
- Amgen Inc. v. Conn. Ret. Plans & Trust Funds, 568 U.S. 455 (Rule 23(b)(3) requires common questions to predominate, not that they be resolved for the class on the merits)
- Bennett v. Behring Corp., 737 F.2d 982 (settlement approval standard: fair, reasonable, adequate, not product of collusion)
- Waters v. Int’l Precious Metals Corp., 190 F.3d 1291 (Eleventh Circuit benchmark for common-fund fee awards)
- Faught v. Am. Home Shield Corp., 668 F.3d 1233 (abuse-of-discretion review of settlement approval and fee awards)
- Knight v. Miami-Dade Cty., 856 F.3d 795 (district court discretion over admissibility and reliability of expert testimony)
- Prado-Steiman ex rel. Prado v. Bush, 221 F.3d 1266 (class representative must share the same injury as class)
- In re Bluetooth Headset Prods. Liab. Litig., 654 F.3d 935 (clear-sailing plus separate fee fund can suggest collusion)
- Johnson v. Georgia Highway Express, Inc., 488 F.2d 714 (factors for evaluating fee awards)
- McDonald v. City of Chicago, 561 U.S. 742 (Second Amendment incorporated against the states; does not extend to restricting manufacturer settlement practices)