Professional Documents
Culture Documents
No. 15-1209
BRIAN DEFALCO,
Plaintiff, Appellee,
v.
VIBRAM USA, INC.; VIBRAM FIVEFINGERS, LLC,
Defendants, Appellees,
JUSTIN FERENCE,
Interested Party, Appellant.
Before
Torruella, Lynch, and Barron,
Circuit Judges.
discretion
that
in
deciding
the
settlement
terms
were
fair,
We affirm.
I.
Three putative class action complaints filed in 2012
alleged
that
Vibram
USA,
Inc.,
and
Vibram
FiveFingers,
LLC
- 3 -
The
first
complaint
was
filed
in
the
District
of
On July 18,
Bezdek v.
Vibram USA Inc., No. 12-10513, 2013 WL 639145 (D. Mass. Feb. 20,
2013).
The second complaint was filed in the Central District
of California by Ali Safavi on July 9, 2012.
2012,
the
Safavi
action
was
stayed
pending
class
Notice of Removal at
12, DeFalco v. Vibram USA, LLC, No. 12-cv-07238 (N.D. Ill. Sept.
11, 2012).
On December 12,
At
that time, the plaintiffs had not motioned for class certification
- 4 -
It is
noteworthy that the language did not set a minimum floor for
recovery.
Refunds for up to two pairs of shoes could be obtained
by submitting only a valid Claim Form.
refund for more than two pairs of shoes would be required to submit
a Claim Form plus proof of purchase.
Administrative and notice costs, attorneys' fees, and
incentive awards for the named plaintiffs would be paid out of the
settlement fund.
evidence.
Vibram
also
- 5 -
agreed
not
to
oppose
class
May
12,
2014,
the
district
court
preliminarily
settlement
purposes
only,
approved
Bezdek
as
the
class
members.
The
Class
Notice
(emailed
to
reasonably
- 6 -
depending
on
claims."
various
factors,
including
the
number
of
valid
Only
district court that the estimated refund was $8.44 per pair.
On
memorandum
January
and
order
16,
2015,
granting
the
district
plaintiffs'
court
motion
entered
for
final
Cain,
law
offers
"laundry
lists
of
factors"
pertaining
The
to
the
advantages
and
disadvantages
of
the
proposed
Carpenters Health Benefits Fund, 582 F.3d 30, 44 (1st Cir. 2009).
issues are reviewed de novo and factual findings are reviewed for
clear error.
Id.
They argue
that the settlement should not have received final approval where
notices to the class estimated a refund of between $20 and $50 per
pair of shoes, but it became known after the deadline to object
- 9 -
that the fund would actually only permit a payment of $8.44 per
pair of shoes.
It is true that the district court's opinion did not
deal directly with the arguments that the notices projected a much
higher settlement payment than the $8.44 which ensued, and that
this was a misrepresentation that voided the settlement.
But the
to
the
objectors'
claims,
there
was
no
The
language
that
recovery
could
"decrease
depending
on
Although
the
did
Class
Notice
did
not
contain
such
language,
it
not
amount
given
the
uncertainty
of
success
that
the
- 10 -
There was
The fact
that a better deal for class members is imaginable does not mean
that such a deal would have been attainable in these negotiations,
or that the deal that was actually obtained is not within the range
of reasonable outcomes. The district court's conclusion that $8.44
per pair was fair and reasonable was not an abuse of discretion.
B.
objectors
take
issue
with
the
requirement
that
- 11 -
The imposition
The
C.
Injunctive Relief
The objectors argue that the injunctive relief in the
purportedly
false
advertising
campaign
unless
Vibram
obtains
The
was
"a
valuable
contribution
to
this
settlement
agreement."
not remedy past harm to consumers does not make such relief
meaningless to those consumers.
D.
Attorneys' Fees
The objectors contest the award of attorneys' fees for
- 13 -
However,
we
have
recognized
that
clear-sailing
Weinberger v. Great N.
Rather, courts
its
duty
to
undertake
such
Id.
heightened
See In re
Thirteen Appeals Arising Out of San Juan Dupont Plaza Hotel Fire
Litig., 56 F.3d 295, 305 (1st Cir. 1995) (describing two methods).
Applying the percentage of the fund method, the district court
found that twenty-five percent of the fund is consistent with what
other district courts found to be reasonable.
See Latorraca v.
Centennial Techs. Inc., 834 F. Supp. 2d 25, 2728 (D. Mass. 2011).
Applying the lodestar method, in which the number of hours expended
is multiplied by a reasonable hourly rate for similarly situated
attorneys, the district court found that the fees represented
roughly sixty-eight percent of the lodestar.
- 14 -
objectors
argue
that
class
counsel's
fee
was
class
hearings,
certification
no
proceedings,
depositions,
proceedings.
But
the
and
no
district
few
summary
court,
substantive
judgment
after
or
motion
trial
requesting
- 15 -