Reibstein v. RITE AID CORPORATION
761 F. Supp. 2d 241
E.D. Pa.2011Background
- Plaintiff alleges Rite Aid violated FACTA by printing expiration dates on receipts after June 3, 2008.
- Settlement class includes 366 individuals who used Rite Aid self-service dispensers and received receipts with expiration dates between June 3, 2008 and June 18, 2009.
- Settlement provides each member with a $20 Rite Aid gift card for qualifying receipts; costs of notice and settlement administration paid by Asteres.
- Plaintiff seeks $3,750 representative award and attorneys' fees up to $65,000; class recovery is valued at $48,820 in gift cards.
- Court preliminarily approved settlement for settlement purposes; no class members objected; one member opted out.
- Court reduces Plaintiff’s requested representative award to $1,000; awards attorneys’ fees remain $65,000 and are approved.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the settlement class should be certified | Class meets Rule 23(a) and 23(b)(3) requirements for settlement. | Settlement class may not satisfy typicality and predominance due to damages/claims. | Class certified for settlement purposes; requirements satisfied. |
| Whether the settlement is fair under Rule 23(e) | Settlement is fair given discovery, lack of objections, and outcomes. | Gift-card relief and fees overwhelm class recovery; fairness questioned. | Settlement is fair overall; however the representative award to Plaintiff is excessive and reduced. |
| Appropriateness of the representative plaintiff award | Award appropriately reflects Plaintiff's role and benefits to the class. | Award should reflect limited participation and risk. | Plaintiff’s representative award reduced to $1,000 (statutory max). |
| Reasonableness of attorneys' fees | Fees totaling $65,000 reasonable under lodestar and statutory fee-shifting. | Fees may be excessive relative to the small class recovery. | Attorneys' fees awarded at $65,000; court notes cross-check considerations but finds lodestar warranted. |
| Valuation form of relief (gift cards) vs cash | Gift cards have cash-like value and are adequate relief. | Non-monetary relief may undercompensate or complicate recovery. | Gift cards deemed to have actual value and fair under the eighth Girsh factor. |
Key Cases Cited
- Girsh v. Jepson, 521 F.2d 153 (3d Cir. 1975) (identified nine factors for evaluating settlement fairness)
- In re Prudential Ins. Co. Am. Sales Practice Litig. Agent Actions, 148 F.3d 283 (3d Cir. 1998) (articulated framework guiding final approval and issuance of 23(e) settlements; includes opt-out considerations)
- Amchem Prods., Inc. v. Windsor, 521 U.S. 591 (U.S. 1997) (settlement-only class certification requires heightened scrutiny)
- Gen. Motors Corp. v. Evans, 55 F.3d 768 (3d Cir. 1995) (class action framework and adequacy considerations)
- Cmty. Bank of N. Va. v. Aetna Fin. Corp., 418 F.3d 277 (3d Cir. 2005) (commonality/typicality analyzed in class actions)