Subscribe Subscribe   Find us on Twitter Follow POL on Twitter  



Bluetooth ripples: Dennis v. Kellogg Co.

| No Comments

You might recall the Rice Krispies class action settlement, Weeks v. Kellogg that the Center for Class Action Fairness successfully objected to, resulting in a modification of cy pres and a reduction of attorneys' fees.

Dennis v. Kellogg was a similar case in the Southern District of California, except over Frosted Mini-Wheats cereal, and Kellogg agreed to an even worse settlement: millions of dollars for the attorneys, less than a million dollars for the class, and cy pres to undisclosed charities indistinguishable from those Kellogg was already giving tens of millions of dollars to. CCAF didn't have a client in that case, so didn't object, and the judge rubber-stamped. But Friday, the Ninth Circuit, citing CCAF victories in Bluetooth and Nachshin v. AOL, reversed on two independent grounds.

First, the failure to identify cy pres recipients precluded appellate review: "trust me" is not an appropriate limiting principle. "To approve this settlement despite its opacity would be to abdicate our responsibility to be 'particularly vigilant' of pre-certification class action settlements." Second, even if the cy pres had been acceptable, the attorneys' fees, reflecting both a gigantic multiplier of lodestar and more than twice the class recovery, were excessive. [LA Times via Bashman; Dennis v. Kellogg (9th Cir. Jul. 13, 2012)]

CCAF has some Rule 28(j) letters to write.

Leave a comment

Once submitted, the comment will first be reviewed by our editors and is not guaranteed to be published. Point of Law editors reserve the right to edit, delete, move, or mark as spam any and all comments. They also have the right to block access to any one or group from commenting or from the entire blog. A comment which does not add to the conversation, runs of on an inappropriate tangent, or kills the conversation may be edited, moved, or deleted.

The views and opinions of those providing comments are those of the author of the comment alone, and even if allowed onto the site do not reflect the opinions of Point of Law bloggers or the Manhattan Institute for Policy Research or any employee thereof. Comments submitted to Point of Law are the sole responsibility of their authors, and the author will take full responsibility for the comment, including any asserted liability for defamation or any other cause of action, and neither the Manhattan Institute nor its insurance carriers will assume responsibility for the comment merely because the Institute has provided the forum for its posting.

Related Entries:



Rafael Mangual
Project Manager,
Legal Policy

Manhattan Institute


Published by the Manhattan Institute

The Manhattan Insitute's Center for Legal Policy.