1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28
Case No. 4:11-cv-03532-CW CHAMBERLAIN OBJECTION TO PROPOSED SETTLEMENT AND FEE REQUEST
William I. Chamberlain 770 5th St NW APT 1013 Washington, DC 20001
In pro per
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA OAKLAND DIVISION CLAIRE DELACRUZ, individually, and on behalf of herself and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. CYTOSPORT, INC., A California Corporation Defendant, William I. Chamberlain, Objector. Case No. 4:11-cv-03532-CW
CLASS ACTION OBJECTION TO PROPOSED SETTLEMENT AND FEE REQUEST AND NOTICE OF APPEARANCE
Date: May 15, 2014 Time: 2:00 P.M. Courtroom: ?? Judge: Hon. Claudia Wilken
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28
Case No. 4:11-cv-03532-CW
i
CHAMBERLAIN OBJECTION TO PROPOSED SETTLEMENT AND FEE REQUEST
TABLE OF CONTENTS
TABLE OF AUTHORITIES ....................................................................................................................................... II
INTRODUCTION (BY WAY OF A DIALOGUE) ................................................................................................ 1
I.
I AM A MEMBER OF THE CLASS AND INTEND TO APPEAR AT THE FAIRNESS HEARING. ......................................................................................................................................................... 4
II.
THE COURT HAS A FIDUCIARY DUTY TO THE UNNAMED MEMBERS OF THIS CLASS. ................................................................................................................................................................. 5
III.
THE SETTLEMENT IS NOT FAIR, REASONABLE, OR ADEQUATE. .............................................. 7
A.
This settlement contains all three of the indicia of impermissible self-dealing identified by the Ninth Circuit in
Bluetooth.
....................................................................................... 7
B.
The injunctive relief has no value to the class because it is prospective
and
duplicative of the FDA’s efforts ........................................................................................................................... 10
C.
The in-kind
cy pres
has no value to the class and is better understood as an increase in CytoSport’s marketing budget ........................................................................................................... 12
D.
The Incentive Award creates a conflict of interest for the named plaintiff and precludes certification of the class under Rule 23(a)(4). ............................................................... 15
E.
The settlement accords preferential treatment to one-off purchasers of CytoSport’s products. ............................................................................................................................................... 17
IV.
THE COURT SHOULD NOT INFER SETTLEMENT APPROVAL IF THERE ARE ONLY A FEW OBJECTIONS. .................................................................................................................................. 17
V.
THIS OBJECTION IS BROUGHT IN GOOD FAITH. ............................................................................. 19
CONCLUSION ............................................................................................................................................................. 20
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28
Case No. 4:11-cv-03532-CW CHAMBERLAIN OBJECTION TO PROPOSED SETTLEMENT AND FEE REQUEST
ii
TABLE OF AUTHORITIES Cases
Amalgamated Meat Cutters & Butcher Workmen v. Safeway Stores, Inc.
, 52 F.R.D. 373 (D. Kan. 1971) .......................................................................................................................................................................... 23
Amchem Prods. Inc. v. Windsor
, 521 U.S. 591 (1997) ................................................................................................... 5, 6
Broussard v. Meineke Discount Muffler Shops, Inc.
, 155 F.3d 331 (4th Cir. 1998) ................................................. 18, 20
Cordy v. USS–Posco Indus
. No. 12-cv-00553-JST, 2013 WL 4028627 (N.D. Cal. Aug. 1, 2013) .......................... 20
Creative Montessori Learning Ctrs. v. Ashford Gear LLC
, 662 F.3d 913 (7th Cir. 2011) ............................................ 19
Dennis v. Kellogg Co.
, 697 F.3d 858 (9th Cir. 2012) .............................................................................................. passim
Diaz v. Trust Territory of Pac. Islands
, 876 F.2d 1401 (9th Cir. 1989) ........................................................................... 6
Ellis v. Edward D. Jones & Co.
, 527 F. Supp. 2d 439 (W.D. Pa. 2007) .................................................................... 22
Grove v. Principal Mut. Life Ins. Co.
, 200 F.R.D. 434 (S.D. Iowa 2001) ..................................................................... 21
Hanlon v. Chrysler Corp.
, 150 F.3d 1011 (9th Cir. 1998) ............................................................................................... 7
In re Baby Prods. Antitrust Litig
., 708 F.3d 163 (3d Cir. 2013) .................................................................................... 14
In re Bluetooth Headset Prods. Liab. Litig.
, 654 F.3d 935 (9th Cir. 2011) ....................................................... 7, 8, 9, 19
In re Dry Max Pampers Litig.
, 724 F.3d 713 (6th Cir. 2013) ............................................................................... passim
In re General Motors
Corp. Engine Interchange Litig.
, 594 F.2d 1106 (7th Cir. 1979) .................................................. 22
In re GMC Pick-Up Truck Fuel Tank Prod. Liab. Litig.
, 55 F.3d 768 (3d Cir. 1995) .............................................. 6, 8
In re Mercury Interactive Corp.
, 618 F.3d 988 (9th Cir. 2010) ......................................................................................... 5
In re Oracle Secs. Litig.
, 132 F.R.D. 538 (N.D. Cal. 1990) ........................................................................................... 11
In re Prudential Ins. Co. Am. Sales Practice Litig. Agent Actions
, 148 F.3d 283 (3d Cir. 1998) ................................... 13
In re Relafen Antitrust Litig.
, 360 F. Supp. 2d 166 D. Mass. 2005) .............................................................................. 5
In re Tableware Antitrust Litig.
, 484 F. Supp. 2d 1078 (N.D. Cal. 2007) ................................................................... 20
In Re Wash. Pub. Power Supply Syst. Litig.
, 19 F.3d 1291 (9th Cir. 1994) .................................................................... 7
Johnson v. Comerica
, 83 F.3d 241 (8th Cir. 1996) ............................................................................................................ 8
Lane v. Facebook, Inc.
, 696 F.3d 811 (9th Cir. 2012) ............................................................................................ 15, 17
Lane v. Facebook, Inc.
, 709 F.3d 791 (9th Cir. 2013) ............................................................................................ 14, 17