Joshua Rawa v. James Migliaccio, 934 F.3d 862

Monsanto sold Roundup concentrate allegedly labeled to overstate yield; consumers sued for misleading labeling and diminished value.
Parallel suits: a California class was certified in Central District of California; separate 49‑state putative class was filed in Eastern District of Missouri; parties negotiated a nationwide settlement and the California action was transferred to Missouri for consolidation and settlement approval.
Settlement established a $21.5 million non‑reversionary Common Fund for claims, notice, administration, incentive awards, and attorneys’ fees; class counsel could seek up to one‑third of the fund; unclaimed funds would go to cy pres recipients.
Notice and claims process produced 70,360 validated claims (13% claims rate) totaling $10,732,832 in payouts (representing ~50% refunds), and the district court awarded attorneys’ fees of 28% of the Common Fund.
Objector James Migliaccio argued consolidation diluted California class members’ claims creating a conflict of interest, challenged the fairness of the settlement and fee award, sought production of an ethics opinion obtained pre‑transfer, and asked the court to redistribute excess fees to class members rather than cy pres.
The district court denied the objections, approved the settlement and class certification, and awarded fees; the Eighth Circuit affirmed, finding no abuse of discretion.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument (Migliaccio)	Defendant's Argument (Plaintiffs/Monsanto)	Held
Settlement approval fairness	Court relied on erroneous class‑size/value figures and misjudged fairness	Settlement provided full compensatory recovery to claimants; claims data supported fairness	Affirmed: district court did not abuse discretion in approving settlement using post‑notice claims analysis
Class certification / conflicts of interest	Consolidation diluted California claims and created counsel conflict; demanded ethics opinion	Counsel vetted conflicts with ethics expert; no concrete conflict identified; consolidation permissible	Affirmed: no inadequacy of representation; refusal to compel ethics opinion not an abuse of discretion
Attorneys’ fee award	Fee (28% of fund; 5.3 lodestar multiplier) is excessive; billing disputes	Fee within circuit norms; district court reviewed Johnson factors and billing records; strong result justifies award	Affirmed: fee reasonable, court provided adequate explanation; multiplier high but not unreasonable
Cy pres distribution of excess fees	Any reduction in fee should be redistributed to class members, not cy pres	Settlement terms govern distribution; courts cannot rewrite agreed settlement	Affirmed: court must follow settlement terms; it did not err in applying cy pres as agreed

Huyer v. Van de Voorde, 847 F.3d 983 (8th Cir. 2017) (standing limits for objectors to class settlements)
Iowa League of Cities v. EPA, 711 F.3d 844 (8th Cir. 2013) (Article III standing elements)
Arizonans for Official English v. Arizona, 520 U.S. 43 (U.S. 1997) (appellate standing must meet Article III)
Keil v. Lopez, 862 F.3d 685 (8th Cir. 2017) (settlement need not equalize state‑by‑state recoveries; claim rates informative)
Grunin v. Int’l House of Pancakes, 513 F.2d 114 (8th Cir. 1975) (appellate supervisory review of fee awards)
Marshall v. Nat’l Football League, 787 F.3d 502 (8th Cir. 2015) (abuse of discretion standard for settlement approval)
Van Horn v. Trickey, 840 F.2d 604 (8th Cir. 1988) (balancing strength of case vs. settlement terms is central fairness factor)
In re Target Corp. Customer Data Sec. Breach Litig., 892 F.3d 968 (8th Cir. 2018) (standards for class certification and fee calculations)
Petrovic v. Amoco Oil Co., 200 F.3d 1140 (8th Cir. 1999) (review of fee awards)
Johnson v. Ga. Highway Express, Inc., 488 F.2d 714 (5th Cir. 1974) (factors for fee reasonableness)
In re Genetically Modified Rice Litig., 764 F.3d 864 (8th Cir. 2014) (district court must give concise but clear explanation for fees)
Evans v. Jeff D., 475 U.S. 717 (U.S. 1986) (court cannot rewrite settlements imposed by parties)
Klier v. Elf Atochem N. Am., Inc., 658 F.3d 468 (5th Cir. 2011) (settlement terms control once approved)