PointofLaw.com
 Subscribe Subscribe   Find us on Twitter Follow POL on Twitter  
   
 
   

 

 

Court rules for NVIDIA



The short opinion is self-explanatory (though it confuses a motion to enforce the settlement with an "objection"). As I stated earlier, if the court believed the intellectually dishonest report of Milberg's expert witness, the consumers would lose, and that's exactly what happened. All those consumer advocates complaining that AT&T Mobility v. Concepcion would take away consumers' ability to engage in class actions were completely silent in this class action where plaintiffs' lawyers extinguished valuable claims in exchange for a $13 million payoff. Every single one of my clients would have been better off with AT&T Mobility's arbitration provision rather than this outrageous class action rip-off. The class members didn't even get a chance to object or opt-out because of the bait-and-switch between what the notice promised and what was offered in the settlement.

The question then becomes: why did Milberg submit such an intellectually dishonest expert report to minimize the likelihood that their clients would receive any relief? If I were a class member, I'd be looking for a good legal malpractice attorney right now to sue over this breach of fiduciary duty. It would be nice if the "consumer advocates" fighting against freedom of contract actually advocated for consumers instead of attorneys and spoke up here.

Related Entries:

 

 


Isaac Gorodetski
Project Manager,
Center for Legal Policy at the
Manhattan Institute
igorodetski@manhattan-institute.org

Katherine Lazarski
Press Officer,
Manhattan Institute
klazarski@manhattan-institute.org

 

Published by the Manhattan Institute

The Manhattan Insitute's Center for Legal Policy.