Gregory Arthur v. United Industries Corporation, 2:17-cv-06983

Background

Plaintiffs alleged that Spectracide® Concentrate labels’ "Makes Up To __ Gallons" statement was misleading because, when mixed as directed for general weed control, the product yielded substantially fewer gallons than represented.
Litigation began in 2017; after amended complaints and discovery (including production of sales, labels, and EPA communications) plaintiffs pursued class claims under California consumer laws and Missouri’s MMPA; named plaintiffs ultimately were Graves, Gren, and Whealen.
Parties engaged in multiple months of arm’s‑length settlement negotiations and reached a Settlement Agreement providing a non‑reversionary $2,500,000 fund for class relief, administration, fees, costs, and incentive awards.
Monetary relief: $6.25 per valid household claim (up to 4 claims per household), with pro rata adjustment; administrator estimated ~67,967 valid claim forms (≈248,042 claims) and an eventual payout of about $6.86 per claim (≈$24.69 average per claiming household).
Injunctive relief: for products manufactured after June 1, 2020, if UIC elects to state "Makes Up to __ Gallons" on labels it will include mixing directions acceptable to EPA‑equivalent state agencies; NAD designated as cy pres recipient for residual funds.
The Court found notice adequate, received no class objections or opt‑outs, certified the nationwide settlement class under Rules 23(a) and 23(b)(3), granted final approval of the settlement, awarded $625,000 in attorneys’ fees, $32,090.63 in costs, and incentive awards of $3,000, $3,000, and $5,000 to the three class representatives.

Issues

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Final approval under Rule 23(e) (fair, reasonable, adequate)	Settlement delivers immediate, meaningful relief (cash + injunctive), negotiated at arm’s length after substantial discovery and with attendant litigation risks; class reaction was positive.	UIC supported settlement; no opposition to final approval.	Court granted final approval, finding settlement procedurally and substantively fair, reasonable, and adequate under Rule 23(e).
Certification of nationwide settlement class (Rule 23(a), 23(b)(3))	Common issues (label representation, deception, statutory claims) predominate; class representatives typical and adequate; class device superior.	UIC did not oppose certification and indicated California and Missouri law may apply.	Court certified settlement class, finding numerosity, commonality, typicality, adequacy, predominance, and superiority satisfied.
Adequacy of notice and claims process (due process & CAFA)	Proposed notice and Claims process provide best practicable notice and straightforward claims submission; CAFA notices provided.	UIC complied with notice obligations; no governmental objections.	Court found notice and administration adequate, CAFA notice satisfied, and no objections/opt‑outs confirmed class acceptance.
Attorneys’ fees, costs, and incentive awards	Requested fees (25% of fund = $625,000) and costs are reasonable under percentage and lodestar methods; incentive awards compensate representative participation.	UIC did not contest amounts.	Court awarded $625,000 in fees, $32,090.63 in costs, and incentive awards ($3,000; $3,000; $5,000), finding them reasonable.

Key Cases Cited

In re Mercury Interactive Corp., 618 F.3d 988 (9th Cir. 2010) (timing of fee motions and notice considerations)
Hanlon v. Chrysler Corp., 150 F.3d 1011 (9th Cir. 1998) (settlement approval factors for class actions)
Churchill Vill., L.L.C. v. Gen. Elec., 361 F.3d 566 (9th Cir. 2004) (standard for evaluating class settlements)
Rodriguez v. West Publishing Corp., 563 F.3d 948 (9th Cir. 2009) (deference to class counsel’s settlement assessment)
In re Bluetooth Headset Prods. Liab. Litig., 654 F.3d 935 (9th Cir. 2011) (attorney‑fee standards for common‑fund cases)
Amchem Prods., Inc. v. Windsor, 521 U.S. 591 (1997) (settlement‑only class certification guidance)
Wal‑Mart Stores, Inc. v. Dukes, 564 U.S. 338 (2011) (commonality requirement)
Gen. Tel. Co. of the Sw. v. Falcon, 457 U.S. 147 (1982) (typicality and representative adequacy)
Mazza v. American Honda Motor Co., 666 F.3d 581 (9th Cir. 2012) (choice‑of‑law concerns for nationwide classes)
In re Hyundai & Kia Fuel Econ. Litig., 926 F.3d 539 (9th Cir. 2019) (state law variations do not defeat settlement class predominance)