Morgan v. The Burton Corporation
2:23-cv-00366
D. Vt.May 16, 2025Background
- Plaintiff David Morgan brought a class action against The Burton Corporation (Burton Snowboards) after notification of a cyberattack compromising customers' personally identifiable information (PII).
- The complaint alleged negligence, breach of implied contract, unjust enrichment, invasion of privacy, and violations of state statutes.
- After removal to federal court and a motion to dismiss, the parties engaged in mediation, resulting in a proposed settlement agreement.
- Settlement benefits included reimbursement for losses, an alternative cash payment, two years of credit monitoring, and identity theft insurance.
- No class members objected to or opted out of the settlement; the court considered requests for attorneys’ fees and a service award for the representative.
- The Court’s decision granted class certification for settlement purposes, final settlement approval, and the requested fees and service award.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Settlement Fairness | Settlement is fair, adequate, and negotiated | Agreement was reached through arm's-length process | Settlement is fair, reasonable, adequate |
| Class Certification (Rule 23) | Numerosity, commonality, typicality, adequacy | Disputed adequacy and appropriateness for class | Met all class certification requirements |
| Reasonableness of Attorneys’ Fees/Service | Reasonable due to complexity and effort | No substantive objection raised | Granted $170,000 fees, $5,000 service |
| Adequacy of Notice | Notice plan complied with Rule 23/Due Process | N/A | Notice adequate and fulfills Rule 23 |
Key Cases Cited
- McReynolds v. Richards-Cantave, 588 F.3d 790 (2d Cir. 2009) (recognizing judicial policy favoring class action settlements)
- Wal-Mart Stores, Inc. v. Dukes, 564 U.S. 338 (2011) (commonality standard for class actions)
- Consol. Rail Corp. v. Town of Hyde Park, 47 F.3d 473 (2d Cir. 1995) (numerosity presumption for classes larger than forty)
- Robidoux v. Celani, 987 F.2d 931 (2d Cir. 1993) (typicality requires that the same unlawful conduct targeted the class)
- Marisol A. v. Giuliani, 126 F.3d 372 (2d Cir. 1997) (adequacy of representation in class actions)
- In re Nassau County Strip Search Cases, 461 F.3d 219 (2d Cir. 2006) (predominance under Rule 23(b)(3))
- Sykes v. Mel Harris & Assocs. LLC, 285 F.R.D. 279 (S.D.N.Y. 2012) (superiority of class action device)
- Goldberger v. Integrated Resources, Inc., 209 F.3d 43 (2d Cir. 2000) (guidelines for reasonable attorneys’ fees in class settlements)