Imani Whitfield v. Yes To,Inc., 2:20-cv-00763

Background

Plaintiffs sued Yes To, Inc., alleging its "Yes To Grapefruit Vitamin C Glow-Boosting Unicorn Paper Mask" caused facial irritation/burns and asserting warranty, consumer protection, fraud, unjust enrichment, conversion, and related claims in consolidated Central District of California actions.
After mediation, parties reached a settlement: Yes To to fund a $750,000 Settlement Fund to cover claims, notice/administration costs, attorneys' fees, expenses, and incentive awards.
Settlement Class: all persons in the United States who purchased or used the Unicorn Mask (resellers, released persons, and judges excluded); claims paid $3.00 per mask (no proof of purchase required) with pro rata adjustment if funds insufficient/excessive.
Notice program (Heffler Claims Group) included publication and a settlement website; Court found notice met Rule 23, due process, and 28 U.S.C. §1715 requirements.
Court granted final approval: certified the settlement class for settlement purposes only, approved the release (including broad waiver and explicit waiver of Cal. Civ. Code §1542 equivalents), awarded Class Counsel fees and expenses, incentive awards to class representatives, and dismissed the action with prejudice.
Fee and awards: Court-approved attorneys' fees of $250,000, expenses of $6,055.41, and $5,000 service awards to each of the three class representatives; claims administration and other mechanics were implemented under the Stipulation.

Issues

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Class certification for settlement purposes	Move to certify nationwide class under Fed. R. Civ. P. 23(b)(3); plaintiffs meet numerosity, commonality, typicality, adequacy, predominance, superiority	Agreed to conditional certification for settlement only	Court conditionally certified the nationwide Settlement Class for settlement purposes only and appointed class reps and Class Counsel
Adequacy of notice	Court-approved media plan (Heffler) would reach ≥75% and provide long/short form notices and website; contests would be allowed	Agreed to proposed notice program	Notice program approved as best practicable, satisfying Rule 23, due process, and §1715 notice requirements
Fairness, reasonableness, adequacy of settlement under Rule 23(e)(2)	Settlement provides immediate recovery, avoids litigation risk, was negotiated at arm’s length with mediation	Settlement avoids expense and business disruption; supports approval	Court found the settlement fair, reasonable, and adequate after considering submissions and objections and approved final settlement
Scope of releases and waiver of unknown claims (including §1542)	Release should bar all claims related to product/presented allegations; includes waiver of unknown claims and §1542 equivalents	Sought a broad global release of Released Persons	Court approved the releases, including express waiver of Cal. Civ. Code §1542 and equivalents, as part of final judgment
Attorneys’ fees and class representative incentive awards	Class Counsel requested up to one-third of the $750,000 fund and reimbursement of costs; service awards up to $5,000 each	Defendant did not oppose reasonable fee/incentive requests per settlement terms	Court awarded $250,000 in attorneys’ fees, $6,055.41 in expenses, and $5,000 service awards to each of the three class representatives

Key Cases Cited

Hesse v. Sprint Corp., 598 F.3d 581 (9th Cir. 2010) (endorses broad release language in class settlements and supports waiver of unknown claims)