The Kroll Lens: Monitoring Class Action Settlements—2024, Volume IX

Another objection contended that the attorneys were profiting without merit, but the Court noted that its order would lay out the fees to be paid to attorneys. Finally, the Court found that certain objections dealt with claims not asserted in the instant case.

After ruling on attorneys’ fees and costs generally, the Court examined the question of the benefit to the class. The Court noted that since the settlement was based upon future relief as a result of the settlement, while that benefit was likely to materialize, it had not yet done so. On that basis, the Court preliminarily awarded a portion of the sought attorneys’ fee and instructed counsel to provide an update to the Court later in the year on the number of class members who have since obtained a benefit provided by the settlement, at which point the Court would consider adjusting the fee award.

The Court found that the Rule 23 requirements of numerosity, commonality, typicality, adequacy, predominance and superiority were satisfied. The Court then turned to the late-filed claims, noting generally that it retains equitable power to manage settlements and could accept untimely claims upon a showing of excusable neglect. Various reasons had been proffered for this untimeliness, including difficulties faced with effectuating notice due to change of addresses or spam filters, or claimants’ attempts to verify their claim amounts in time. The Court found this warranted late acceptance and reasoned that there was a low risk of prejudice to Defendants due to the lack of objections and low increase in damages. Furthermore, the delay was less than a month and caused no interruption to proceedings, and the Court found late-filers had acted promptly and in good faith.