Estate of Kenneth R. Brown v. Consumer Law Associates LLC
2:11-cv-00194
E.D. Wash.May 23, 2013Background
- Estate of Kenneth R. Brown substituted as named class representative after Brown’s death; Rule 25(a) substitution satisfied and non-prejudice to Defendants found.
- Court grants final approval of a class action settlement between Plaintiffs and Defendants (CLA et al.) in a Washington DAA/CPA context.
- Settlement terms: total settlement fund $1,155,000; approximately $776,331.95 to distribute to 712 class members.
- Class certified for settlement purposes under Rule 23(b)(3); notice to class completed with no timely objections.
- Counsel fees, costs, and an incentive payment are approved; dismissal to follow with release of claims upon the Settlement’s Effective Date.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether substitution of Estate as class representative is proper | Brown’s estate fulfills representation needs and lacks conflict | No prejudice or conflict from substitution | Substitution granted; Estate substituted as class representative |
| Whether the settlement is fair, reasonable, and adequate under Rule 23(e) | Settlement resolves liability and damages without trial; substantial recovery | Litigation risks and potential higher recovery; settlement may be unfair | Final approval granted; settlement deemed fair, adequate, and reasonable under Hanlon factors |
| Whether the class should be certified for settlement purposes | Common questions predominate; cohesive class | Certification could create risk if contested on merits | Settlement class certified for purposes of the settlement |
| Whether fees, costs, and incentives are reasonable | Fees justified by lodestar, results, and risks; incentive reasonable | Attorneys’ fees may be excessive given settlement amount | Class counsel fees and $5,000 incentive approved; fees based on lodestar and fund percentage |
Key Cases Cited
- Barlow v. Ground, 39 F.3d 231 (9th Cir. 1994) (motion to substitute and suggestion of death must be served on non-parties)
- In re Indep. Gasoline Antitrust Litig., 79 F.R.D. 552 (D. Md. 1978) (administrator of named plaintiff’s estate may substitute as class representative when no conflict exists)
- Lane v. Facebook, Inc., 696 F.3d 811 (9th Cir. 2012) (court examines fairness of settlement terms overall rather than components)
- Hanlon v. Chrysler Corp., 150 F.3d 1011 (9th Cir. 1998) (Hanlon factors guiding approval of class settlements)
- Torrisi v. Tucson Elec. Power Co., 8 F.3d 1370 (9th Cir. 1993) (non-exclusive factors for evaluating settlement fairness)