Robert Radcliffe v. Experian Information Solutions, 715 F.3d 1157

Consolidated FCRA/California-class action settled for $45 million monetary relief; fund allocated for actual damages, incentive awards to named plaintiffs, attorney fees, and convenience awards to others.
Incentive awards were conditioned on the named plaintiffs’ support for the settlement, creating divergent interests between representatives and absent class members.
District court preliminarily approved May 2009, final approval July 2011, and awarded class counsel’s fees; objectors challenged the adequacy of representation.
Appellants argued the conditional incentives and fee-sharing created conflicts of interest undermining class representation; district court denied these objections.
Court to review for abuse of discretion under Rodriguez precedents and determine whether the settlement and fee awards can stand given conflicts.
Opinion holds that conditional incentive awards created independent grounds to reverse the settlement and fees, remanding for further proceedings on remand.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Do conditional incentive awards render class representatives inadequate?	Objecting Plaintiffs contend incentives created a conflict undermining absent members.	Settling Plaintiffs argue incentives reflect standard practice and do not taint representation.	Yes; conditional incentives undermine adequacy and require reversal.
Does conflicted representation by class counsel warrant reversal of the settlement and fees?	Objecting Plaintiffs assert counsel failed to discharge loyalty due to conflicts.	Settling Plaintiffs claim no actionable conflict existed; district court discretion.	Yes; conflicted representation warrants reversal of settlement and fee awards.
Should the district court reverse the settlement and related fee/cost awards given the conflicts?	Objecting Plaintiffs urge reversal to protect absent class members.	Settlement should stand if conflicts are manageable or remand allowed.	Yes; settlement and awards reversed and remanded for further proceedings.

Staton v. Boeing Co., 327 F.3d 938 (9th Cir. 2003) (incentive awards must not undermine class adequacy)
Rodriguez I, 563 F.3d 948 (9th Cir. 2009) (disapproval of incentive agreements that diverge interests)
Rodriguez II, 688 F.3d 645 (9th Cir. 2012) (conflicts from incentive agreements taint counsel’s representation)
In re Bluetooth Headset Prods. Liab. Litig., 654 F.3d 935 (9th Cir. 2011) (reversal based on conflicts and lack of loyalty considerations)
Hanlon v. Chrysler Corp., 150 F.3d 1011 (9th Cir. 1998) (due-process, absent class members must be adequately represented)
Amchem Prods., Inc. v. Windsor, 521 U.S. 591 (U.S. 1997) (structural assurances of fair and adequate representation required in settlements)
Molski v. Gleich, 318 F.3d 937 (9th Cir. 2003) (adequacy depends on absence of antagonism and shared interests)