Roos v. Honeywell International, Inc.
241 Cal. App. 4th 1472
| Cal. Ct. App. | 2015Background
- Four objectors appealed after trial court approved an $8.15 million settlement with Honeywell and awarded class counsel fees.
- Class was certified in 2012 for California residents who bought Honeywell round thermostats in California during 1986–2013.
- Notice described a potential $18 per thermostat payment and a cy près distribution of residual funds to nonprofits under § 384.
- Settlement funds would cover fees up to 37.5% of the total settlement, with remainder to be distributed after claims.
- Trial court found Rogers’s objection untimely and the other three objectors lacked standing, but eventually addressed their merits.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Timeliness of Rogers’s objection | Rogers timely objected under the notice terms. | Rogers filed late; objection waived. | Rogers’s objection untimely; waiver affirmed. |
| Standing of objectors Congdon, Moser, Waldenville | Objectors are class members with a real interest. | Objectors failed to show class membership under notice and declaration rules. | Objectors had standing; declarations under notice were sufficient. |
| Cy près term propriety | Cy près ensures residuals aid purposes of the action when claims exceed funds. | Distribution to nonprofits was improper if not exhausting settlement funds to claimants. | Cy près term properly approved under § 384; consensual residual distribution authorized. |
| Reasonableness of class counsel fees | Fees capped at 37.5% were fair given lodestar and case complexity. | 37.5% cap is excessive or inappropriate in common-fund case. | Cap reasonable; lodestar cross-check supported award within court discretion. |
| Court's review of billing records | Records reviewed and supported by lodestar evidence. | Court did not adequately scrutinize hours billed. | Court’s review adequate; evidence supported the fee calculation under cap. |
Key Cases Cited
- In re Microsoft I–V Cases, 135 Cal.App.4th 706 (Cal. App. Dist. 1st) (abuse-of-discretion standard for settlements; weighting of factors)
- Dunk v. Ford Motor Co., 48 Cal.App.4th 1794 (Cal. App. 1996) (settlement review factors for fairness)
- Wershba v. Apple Computer, Inc., 91 Cal.App.4th 224 (Cal. App. 2000) (standing and intervention in class actions)
- Lealao v. Beneficial California, Inc., 82 Cal.App.4th 19 (Cal. App. 2000) (common fund fee considerations; lodestar vs. percent-of-recovery)
- Serrano v. Priest, 20 Cal.3d 25 (Cal. 1977) (lodestar-based approach to attorney fees in California)