Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-casd-3_11-cv-02794/USCOURTS-casd-3_11-cv-02794-1/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 480
Nature of Suit: Consumer Credit
Cause of Action: 28:1331 Fed. Question

---

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

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

AMELIA FOOS, individually and on

behalf of all others similarly situated,

Plaintiff,

v.

ANN, INC., a Delaware corporation doing

business as Ann Taylor Retail, Inc.,

Defendant.

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

Civil No. 11cv2794 L (MDD)

ORDER GRANTING OBJECTOR’S

EX PARTE MOTION FOR

DISCLOSURE OF CLAIMS RATE

DATA [doc. #66]

The Court previously found the settlement of this action to be fair, reasonable and

adequate. Plaintiff’s counsel submitted a motion for attorneys’ fees which remains pending.

Sarah McDonald, who objected to the class action settlement, now moves ex parte for the

disclosure of claims rate data in order for the Court to properly consider the attorneys’ fees

requested. Claim members had until February 8, 2013, in which to submit claims for relief under

the settlement. Accordingly, the claims administrator has the data showing how many class

members requested a coupon under the settlement agreement.

In seeking disclosure of the number of claims submitted by class members, McDonald

contends the information would (1) assist the Court in reviewing the merits of the attorneys’ fees

sought and (2) provide valuable information in general concerning class actions settlements,

particularly with the type of benefit obtained by class members here. But plaintiff opposes the

11cv2794

Case 3:11-cv-02794-L-MDD Document 71 Filed 05/20/13 Page 1 of 3
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

disclosure request as procedurally improper and irrelevant. 

Since the filing of the ex parte motion, the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals has addressed

this specific issue of attorneys’ fees in the context of a coupon settlement under CAFA, an issue

of first impression. See In re HP Inkjet Printer Litigation, 2013 WL 1986396 (9th Cir. May 15,

2013). In HP Inkjet, objectors contended that the attorneys’ fees award violated CAFA,

specifically 28 U.S.C. § 1712(a)-(c), which controls the calculation of attorneys’ fees when the

settlement contains an award of coupons to class members or injunctive relief or both. Id. The

district court found the settlement was fair, reasonable and adequate, and by separate order,

awarded attorneys’ fees by applying the loadstar method to an estimated “ultimate value” of the

settlement. The Court of Appeals reversed.

Section 1712(c) is the relevant portion of the statute in the present case because the

settlement involves both an award of coupons and injunctive relief to class members, i.e., a

“mixed settlement”:

If a proposed settlement in a class action provides for an award of coupons to class

members and also provides equitable relief, including injunctive relief –

(1) that portion of the attorney’s fee to be paid to class counsel that is based upon a

portion of the recovery of the coupons shall be calculated in accordance with

subsection (a); and

(2) that portion of the attorney’s fee to be paid to class counsel that is not based

upon a portion of the recovery of coupons shall be calculated in accordance with

subsection (b).

Thus, “[t]he practical effect of § 1712(c) is that the district court must perform two

separate calculations to fully compensate class counsel.” HP Inkjet at *8. The first calculation is

a determination of a “reasonable contingency fee based on the actual redemption value of the

coupons awarded.” Id. (emphasis added.) The second calculation is a determination of “the

reasonable lodestar amount to compensate class counsel for any non-coupon relief obtained.” Id. 

Noting that “one of the main purposes of CAFA” is “discouraging coupon settlements”,

the appellate court pointed to the legislative history: “[T]he fee award should be based on the

demonstrated value of coupons actually redeemed by the class members.” Id. at *10 (quoting

2 11cv2794

Case 3:11-cv-02794-L-MDD Document 71 Filed 05/20/13 Page 2 of 3
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

S. Rep. 109-14 at 30). 

The HP Inkjet case held:

Under § 1712 of CAFA, a district court may not award attorneys’ fees to class

counsel that are “attributable to” an award of coupons without first considering the

redemption value of the coupons. A district court may, however, award lodestar

fees to compensate class counsel for any non-coupon relief they obtain, such as

injunctive relief.

Id.

Here, objector seeks disclosure of claims rate data. Because under controlling law such

information will be necessary for the Court to undertake the appropriate review of plaintiffs’

attorneys’ fees motion, 

IT IS ORDERED:

1. Objector’s ex parte motion for disclosure of claims rate data is GRANTED. [doc.

#66] Plaintiffs shall provide the claims rate data to objector and opposing counsel

on or before May 24, 2013.

2. Objector may file a response to plaintiff’s motion for attorneys’ fees within 10

days of the receipt of the claims rate data.

3. Plaintiff may file a reply to objector’s response within 5 days of service of the

response.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

DATED: May 20, 2013

M. James Lorenz

United States District Court Judge

COPY TO: 

HON. MITCHELL D. DEMBIN

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

ALL PARTIES/COUNSEL

3 11cv2794

Case 3:11-cv-02794-L-MDD Document 71 Filed 05/20/13 Page 3 of 3