18th Annual Workplace Class Action Report - 2022 Edition

474 Annual Workplace Class Action Litigation Report: 2022 Edition a settlement instrument that both parties supported. When Defendant moved for an allowance to offer direct settlement offers to property class members, the Court previously ruled that Plaintiffs’ class counsel would be entitled to attorneys’ fees in the event that the direct settlement offer by Defendant became effective. The Court thereafter paused consideration of the direct offer initiative in light of the accusations by its former in-house attorney that Defendant engaged in discovery violations. The Court subsequently issued a ruling on the percentage of attorneys’ fees so that Defendant could make a determination as to how it wanted to proceed with the direct offer settlements. Plaintiffs’ attorneys’ spent approximately 14,000 hours of work on the matters over the course of many years of litigation. The maximum percentage fee sought by Plaintiffs was one-third of $12.82 million or $4.27 million, which would require 100% acceptance of the direct offer. According to the lodestar cross-check, the Court opined that the proposed lodestar figure of $3,971,217 was not significantly lower than the one-third percentage fee. Further, as the rate of acceptance decreased, the lodestar amount would quickly exceed the percentage-based fee. Defendants would offer $4,000 each to approximately 2,000 property owners and $10,000 each to approximately 200 owners on private wells. Accordingly, if every owner accepted the offer, Defendant would pay out $10 million, consisting of the sum of $8 million (for property owners on public water supply) and $2 million (for owners on wells), which would provide a contingency fee payment of $3,333,333 for attorneys’ fees. The Court concluded that 33% was not unreasonable for this action, particularly when observing the lodestar hourly rate calculation. The Court therefore conditioned the direct offer on Defendant’s agreement to pay the one-third contingency fee plus a pro rata share of the reasonable expenses. The Court also observed that should the attorneys’ fee award be unacceptable to Defendant, it had the right to withdraw from the offer. (ix) Bifurcation Issues In Class Actions In Re Broiler Chicken Antitrust Litigation , Case No. 16-CV-8637 (N.D. Ill. Oct. 15, 2021). I n this consolidated antitrust class action litigation involving claims that poultry producers manipulated the supply of chicken to keep the prices artificially high, Plaintiff Chick-fil-A filed a motion to reconsider the Court’s bifurcation of the supply reduction and Georgia Dock claims from the big-rigging claims. After it ordered supplemental briefing, the Court granted Plaintiff’s motion and vacated the bifurcation order. Plaintiff contended that the order prejudiced its claims or was premature because: (i) it operated as a de facto dismissal of Plaintiff’s allegation of “overarching conspiracy;” (ii) it prevented Plaintiff from using evidence of bid rigging to prove the supply reduction and Georgia Dock claims; and (iii) it could lead to inconsistent jury verdicts. Id . at 3. The Court found that since it had not yet ruled on whether Plaintiff’s allegations of overarching conspiracy could proceed, it could not rule on whether bifurcation would operate as a de facto dismissal. Furthermore, the Court determined that it would difficult to address what evidence regarding bid rigging Plaintiff would be prevented from using, as the Court had yet to analyze any evidence since the case had not yet reached the summary judgement phase. The Court reasoned that without a complete evidentiary record, it was likely too early to predict the questions a jury would be required to answer to establish that there could be inconsistent verdicts. The Court concluded that given the fact that Plaintiff’s claim for overarching conspiracy and bid rigging had yet to be tested under Rule 12, it was premature to bifurcate the claims. For these reasons, the Court vacated the bifurcation order. Singh, et al. v. Lenovo Inc., 2021 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 73837 (D. Md. April 16, 2021). Plaintiffs filed a class action alleging that Defendant knowingly sold its Yoga devices with defective hinges in violation of various states’ consumer fraud statutes and in breach of express and implied warranties. Defendant filed a motion to bifurcate class and merits discovery, which the Court denied. The Court determined that with regard to overlap, the Rule 23 commonality, typicality, and predominance inquiries would be inexorably linked to merits discovery such that bifurcation would not be justified. The Court agreed with Plaintiffs that the rigorous analysis required at the class certification stage would necessitate that the Court review Plaintiffs’ causes of action to determine whether they were susceptible to class-wide proof. Id . at *8. Therefore, the Court opined that it would likely require Defendant’s records in order to determine whether Defendant knew of the defect and continued to sell Yoga devices. Defendant argued that bifurcation would allow for an earlier determination of class certification and prevent the expense of merits discovery should a class ultimately not be certified. Id . The Court found this argument without merit as the timelines with or without bifurcation were similar. Finally, Defendant asserted that allowing merits discovery to proceed simultaneously could result in an expensive and lengthy process that will prove wasteful should a class never be certified. Id . at *10. Plaintiffs argued that bifurcation would consume rather than conserve the Court’s resources. Id . The Court reasoned that since the parties had differing views of what constituted merits and class discovery, it would likely be required to expend resources drawing those lines