Charron v. Wiener, 731 F.3d 241

Plaintiffs allege Pinnacle engaged in a RICO scheme and NYCPA fraud to fraudulently raise rents in rent-regulated NYC buildings.
District court certified classes for injunctive relief and damages; the damages class was limited due to predominance concerns.
Settlement negotiations, overseen by a magistrate judge, resulted in a comprehensive agreement with audits, best-practices, and a court-appointed claims administrator.
Settlement provides a damages process for past overcharges and harassment claims, with potential double damages for willful conduct, plus fees to nonprofits and class counsel.
The agreement excludes Excluded Overcharge Claims (pre-July 11, 2004 or overcharges by prior owners) from the claims process but preserves other claims and injunctive relief.
After notice and a fairness hearing, the district court approved the settlement; objections and opt-outs were minimal.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether the settlement is fair, reasonable, and adequate under Rule 23(e)(2).	Charron argues lack of subclassing risks inadequate protection of some members.	Wiener contends district court properly weighed Grinnell factors and overall fairness.	Settlement approved; district court did not abuse its discretion.
Whether there was adequacy of representation under Rule 23(a)(4) given potential intra-class conflicts.	Charron asserts Excluded Overcharge Claims create fundamental conflicts needing separate representation.	Wiener argues no fundamental conflict; class representation adequate without subclasses.	No fundamental intra-class conflict; subclasses unnecessary.
Whether the district court erred by not requiring further discovery before settlement.	Objectors claim more discovery was needed to evaluate settlement.	Court found prior discovery sufficient and plaintiffs’ objections cogent but not requiring more.	Discretion not abused; no automatic right to additional discovery.
Whether objections by named plaintiffs required rejection of the settlement.	Five named plaintiffs opposed the settlement as improper.	Assent of named plaintiffs not required if Rule 23 criteria are met.	Settlement affirmed despite objections from named plaintiffs.

Detroit v. Grinnell Corp., 495 F.2d 448 (2d Cir. 1974) (nine-factor framework for determining settlement fairness)
Amchem Prods., Inc. v. Windsor, 521 U.S. 591 (Supreme Court 1997) (class-action settlements must protect absent members; dangers of settlement schemes)
Ortiz v. Fibreboard Corp., 527 U.S. 815 (Supreme Court 1999) (adequacy and subclasses; limits on certifying settlement classes)
In re Literary Works in Elec. Databases Copyright Litig., 654 F.3d 242 (2d Cir. 2011) (adequacy requires independent Rule 23(a) analysis from settlement fairness)
McReynolds v. Richards-Cantave, 588 F.3d 790 (2d Cir. 2009) (deference to district court in class settlements; criteria for abuse of discretion)
Wal-Mart Stores, Inc. v. Dukes, 131 S. Ct. 2541 (Supreme Court 2011) (comprehensive discussion of class certification and decertification risks)
Ortiz v. Fibreboard Corp., 527 U.S. 815 (Supreme Court 1999) (adequacy and subclass considerations)
D’Amato v. Deutsche Bank, 236 F.3d 78 (2d Cir. 2001) (caution against disturbing settlement absent clear error)
In re Literary Works in Elec. Databases Copyright Litig., 654 F.3d 242 (2d Cir. 2011) (independent analysis of Rule 23(a) adequacy apart from settlement fairness)