Henning v. Luxury Brand Partners, LLC
3:22-cv-07011
N.D. Cal.Apr 23, 2024Background
- Plaintiffs sued Luxury Brand Partners alleging IGK dry-shampoo products contained benzene above FDA guidance and sought restitution and consumer‑protection remedies under state laws (FAL, UCL, CLRA, FDUTPA) and unjust enrichment.
- The parties negotiated a pre‑certification settlement: defendant will pay $850,000 into a common fund (no liability admitted).
- Settlement deductions: up to $212,500 (25%) for attorneys’ fees, limited litigation costs, up to $250,000 for administration, and up to $2,500 each (total $5,000) in service awards to two class representatives.
- Relief to class members: full refund with proof of purchase, or $4 per product (max $20) without proof; potential pro rata reduction depending on claims; no injunctive relief; no reversion to defendant; residual funds to valid claimants or cy pres (Public Counsel).
- The Court provisionally certified the nationwide settlement class for settlement purposes, appointed class counsel, approved the notice plan and administrator (Angeion), and granted preliminary approval setting deadlines and a final fairness hearing.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the settlement is within the range of approval under Rule 23(e)(2) | Settlement provides meaningful, certain monetary relief given litigation risks and expenses | Settlement resolves exposure without admission; fund is reasonable relative to risks | Court preliminarily approved: settlement falls within range of fair, reasonable, and adequate (no indicia of collusion) |
| Whether to conditionally certify the proposed class for settlement purposes | Class meets Rule 23(a) and (b)(3): numerosity, commonality (benzene presence/failure to warn), typicality, adequacy, predominance, and superiority | LBP accepted certification for settlement only and reserved defenses if approval fails | Court conditionally certified the settlement class and appointed class counsel for settlement purposes only |
| Adequacy of notice and notice plan | Proposed long‑form notice, publication/digital campaign, and settlement website reasonably calculated to reach class members | Agreed to the same notice plan; administration by Angeion | Court approved the notice forms and campaign as the best practicable notice meeting due process |
| Allocation, fees, cy pres, and potential conflicts (fees, service awards, Public Counsel) | Counsel to seek up to 25% fees and modest service awards; class members treated equitably; cy pres only if residuals remain | Defendant agreed to capped fund and no reversion; parties to certify no conflicts with cy pres recipient | Court preliminarily approved allocation mechanics and fee process, ordered counsel to declare no conflicts with cy pres recipient and reserved full evaluation for final approval |
Key Cases Cited
- Hanlon v. Chrysler Corp., 150 F.3d 1011 (9th Cir. 1998) (factors for assessing class settlement fairness)
- Churchill Vill., L.L.C. v. Gen. Elec., 361 F.3d 566 (9th Cir. 2004) (standards for settlement review)
- In re Mego Fin. Corp. Sec. Litig., 213 F.3d 454 (9th Cir. 2000) (heightened scrutiny for pre‑certification settlements)
- In re Bluetooth Headset Prods. Liab. Litig., 654 F.3d 935 (9th Cir. 2011) (warning against collusive settlements and coupon‑based conflicts)
- Mullane v. Cent. Hanover Bank & Trust Co., 339 U.S. 306 (1950) (due process notice requirements)
- Phillips Petroleum Co. v. Shutts, 472 U.S. 797 (1985) (constitutional requirements for class notice)
- Officers for Justice v. Civil Serv. Comm’n, 688 F.2d 615 (9th Cir. 1982) (notice must reasonably apprise class members)