FIL ED U.S. COURT OF APPEAL S EL EVENTHCI RCUI T OCTOB ER 31, 2011 J OHN L EY CL ERK [PUBLISH] IN THE UN ITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE ELE VENTH CIRCUIT

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ No. 1 0- 12 49 6

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ D.C. Dock etNo. 2 :0 7- cv -0 19 28 -RDP LAURA FAUGHT, STEVEN FAUGH T, on be ha lf o f th em se lv es an d a ll ot he rs si m il arl y si tu at ed , Pl ai nt iff s- App el le es , JOHN HOW E, et al ., In te rv en or s- Pl ai nt iff s,

ve rs us AMERIC AN HOME SHIELD CORPORATION, Defen da nt -Ap pe ll ee, ROBERT SHEPARD, LUZ SHEPARD, JANET TZENDZ ALIAN, MERLYN D. LIND, ROSALYN URBANEK, In te res te d- Part ie s- App el la nt s.__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ No. 1 0- 12 53 4

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ D.C. Dock etNo. 2 :0 7- cv -0 19 28 -RDP LAURA FAUGHT, STEVEN FAUGH T, on be ha lf o f th em se lv es an d a ll ot he r si mil ar si tu at ed , Pl ai nt iff s- App el le es , JOHN HOW E, et al ., In te rv en or s- Pla in ti ffs , THOMAS ARRINGTON, In te rv en orPla in ti ff-Ap pe ll an t, ve rs us AMERIC AN HOME SHIELD CORPORATION, Defen da nt -Ap pe ll ee.

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ No. 1 0- 12 53 6

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ D.C. Dock etNo. 2 :0 7- cv -0 19 28 -RDP

2LAURA FAUGHT,

STEVEN FAUGH T, on be ha lf o f th em se lv es an d a ll ot he rs si mil arl y si tu at ed , Pl ai nt iff s- App el le es , JOHN HOW E, JENNY HILL, JENNIFER DEACHIN, MIC HAEL MCKERLEY, KENNET H BEHREND, PAMELA BEHREND, JEFF W ILLIAMS, SABRI NA W ILLIAMS, JANET K. W OOD, In te rv en or s- Pl ai nt iff s- App el la nt s, THOMAS ARRINGTON, et a l., In te rv en or s- Pl ai nt iff s, ve rs us AMERIC AN HOME SHIELD CORPORATION, Defen da nt -Ap pe ll ee.

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ App eal s fr om

th e Uni te d S ta te s Di st ric t Co urt fo r th e North ernDis tri ctof Al ab am a

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ (Oct ob er 3 1, 2 01 1)

3Befo re DUBINA, Ch ie f Ju dg e, CARNES, Ci rcu itJu dg e, an d S ANDS, Dis tri ct * Ju dg e. DUBINA, Ch ie f Ju dg e: Thi s ap pe al is th e co ns ol id at io n o f th ree app eal s b ro ug htby objec to rs to a cl as s ac ti on set tl em en t. The un de rlyin g c as e in vo lv edall eg at io ns th atAm eri can Hom e Sh ie ld(“ AHS”) en ga ge d i n apa tt ernof wro ng ly deny in g c la im s u nd er i ts ho m e warra nt y

co nt ract s. Two c la ss act io n l aws ui ts res ul te d fr om th es e al le ga ti on s, the fir stbro ug htinCal ifo rn iast at e co urt an d t hi s ca se , ori gi na ll y fil ed in th e North ernDis tri ctof Al ab am a. Afte r th e Cal ifo rn iaco urt re jecte d a pr op os edset tl em en t i n i ts cas e, th e p art ie s i n t hi s ca se reac he d aset tl em en t ag reem en t, wh ic h t he di stric t co urt ap pr ov ed . Fou r se ts of o bjec to rs ap pe al fro m th e d is tri ctco urt’s co nf

irmatio n o f th e se tt le m en t ag reem en t. The ir o bjec ti on s fa ll in to th e fo ll owi ng cat eg or ie s: (1) ob jecti on s t o t he cla ss no ti ce, (2 ) fai rn es s ch al le ng es to th e se tt le m en t, an d (3 ) ob jecti on s t o t he att orne y s’ fees award edto

Honora ble W. L ouis Sands, United States District J udg e for the Middle District of * Georg ia, sitting by

designation. 4cl as s co un se l. Forth e rea so ns setforth be lo w, we affi rm th e jud gm en t o f th e 1 di st ric t co urt. I. App el le e AHS is inth e b us in es s o f se ll in g, i ss ui ng , andadm in is te rin g se rv ic e co nt ract s fo r certa in ho m e ap pl ia nc es an d s y st em s ra ng in g fr om di sh was he rs to HVAC sy st em s. Inex ch an ge fora fee, AHS co nt ract edwith t he ho m e o wne rs to arrang e fo r se rv ic e te ch ni ci an s fr om th ei r ne two rkto rep ai r or rep la ce the syste m s an d app li an ces un de r ci rcu m st an ces sp eci fie d u nd er the ho m e warrant y co nt ract s. AHS d oe s n otdi rect ly serv ic e o r rep la ce an y ap pl ia nc e o r syste m co ve redby the co ntract s, b utsep arat el y co nt ract s wi th servi ce t ech ni ci an s to co nduc t the workat areduc edrat e. Si nc e 2 00 7, AHS’s b us in es s p ract ic es ha ve be enth e subjec t o f two cla ss act io n l aws ui ts all eg in g tha t AHS en ga ge d i n apa tt ernof wro ng ly den y in g c la im s fo r al le ge d fa il ur e to m ai nt ai n o r cl eanth e syst em or app li an ce, d el ib erat el y br each in g t he servi ce co nt ract s, an d e nt eri ng in to co nt ract s wi th servi ce

One se t of objectors, the Pettittobjectors, f ailed to re ceive timely

notice of the oral 1 argument schedule d in this case. As a result, we bif

urcated their a

ppeal, Appe al No. 10-12533. With the exception of one unique issue prese nted in Appea l No. 10-12533, we took the issues raised by the Pettitt obj ector s under submission on the briefs a nd will decide them a long w ith the challeng es ra ised by

the three other sets of obje ctors. Thus, this opinion addresses a ll issues prese nted in the consolidated a ppeals, save for the que stion of whether counsel for

the Pettitt objectors a

re e ntitled to attorney s’ fe es. 5te ch ni ci an s tha t i nc en ti vi ze t ech ni ci an s t o fi ndis su es with t he ap pl ia nc es th atfal l

ou ts id e o f th e se rv ic e co nt ract . The fir stcla ss act io n c om pl ai ntwas fi le d i n 2 00 7 b y Karo n a ndL.B. Chi p Edl es on ag ai ns t Am eri canHom e Sh ie ldof C al ifo rn iainCal ifo rn iast at e co urt (t he

“ Edl es on act io n” ). Thre e m on th s l at er, Laura an d S te ve n F au gh t fi le d the ir c la ss act io n c om

pl ai ntinth is cas e. Man y of t he all eg at io ns inth e co m pl ai ntwere the sa m e as inth e Edl es on co m pl ai nt , bu t the Fau gh ts ’ pu ta ti ve cla ss was n arro wer an d i nc lu de d “ [a]ll pe rs on s, wh o i n t he las t s ix y ears , hav e p ur ch as eda res id en ti al ho m e warra nt y

co nt ractfro m

AHS app li cab le to a ho us e wit hi n t he Uni te d S ta te s, an d wi th in th e o rig in al co nt ractterm of o ne y ear, h ada cl ai m

de ni edforrep ai r or rep la cem en t o f a m ajorho m e co m po ne ntba se d o n an a ll eg edfai lu re t o c le anor m ai nt ai n.” [R. 1 at 7 .] The p ut at iv e cl as s i n Edl es on ex te nd edto “ al l p ers on s wh o m ad e a cl ai m

un de r a h om e warra nt y

in su ran ce p la n o bt ai ne d fr om [AHS]. ” [R. 39 , Ex. 1.] The cas es pro gr es se d i n p aral le l p ro ceed in gs . The p art ie s i n t hi s ca se be ga n co urt o rd eredm ed ia ti on inSep te m be r 20 08 . In No ve m

be r 20 08 , aft er b ei ng in fo rm edth atth e Edl es on pa rti es reac he d aten ta ti ve set tl em en t ag reem en t, the di st ric t co urt s ta y edth is cas e.

6Inex ch an ge forfor fei ti ng th ei r fu tu re ri gh ts to su e as a cl as s, the Edl es on

se tt le m en t ag reem en t g av e th e cl as s m em be rs th e ri gh t t o re subm itth ei r cl ai m s t o a Rev ie w Deskrun by A HS. It d idno t h av e an y sp eci fic st an da rd s fo r ad jud ic at in g t he cla im s an d d idno t s pe ci fy th e qua li fic at io n l ev el forem pl oyees as si gn edto th e h el p d es k. Th e se tt le m en t al so all owe d AHS t o o ffercla ss m em be rs a on e y ear “ Fl ex Pl an ” ex te ns io n t o the ir p ol ic ie s ata reduc edrat e. The se tt le m en t i nc lu de d anu m be r of bu si ne ss pra ct ic e ch an ge s i nc lu di ng rem ov in g in cen ti ve s fr om

th e co ntract s wi th servi ce t ech ni ci an s tha t en co ur ag edth em to fin d pr ob le m s tha t wo ul d s up po rt AHS d en y in g c la im s u nd er the ir h om e warra nt y co nt ract s. Att orne y s’ fees un de r th atag reem en t wer e se t at$2 .5 m il li onan d d id no t i nc lu de an y

po rti onof t he m on ey

rece iv edby the cla ss m em be rs th ro ug h t he Rev ie w Desk . Afte r a fai rn es s h eari ng , th e Edl es on co urt re jecte d the set tl em en t. Ch ie f am on g t he Edl es on co urt’s co nc ern s was th atth e se tt le m en t g av e AHS th e ri gh t t o read jud ic at e cl ai m s. Th e co urt ex pr es se d c on cern th atth e cl as s m em be rs wou ldbe gi vi ng up “ vi ab le ” an d “ real is ti c” ri gh ts inex ch an ge on ly for the ho pe “ th ata de fen da ntth atha s al le ge dl y no t ac te d i n g oo d fa it h” wou ldno w actingo odfai th . The co urt was esp eci al ly troubl edby the factth atcla ss m em be rs ’ rig ht s t o s ue in th e fu tu re m ig htbe li m it edba se d o n t he ap pl ic ab le st atut e o f li m it at io ns . The 7Edl es on co urt al so di sapp ro ve d o f a p ro vi si on th atall owe d AHS t o s el l ad di ti on al

co ve rag e to cla ss m em

be rs du rin g t he res ub m is si on pro ces s, n ot in g “ [t]hi s al lo ws [AHS] to m ak e ad di ti on al m on ey fro m th e se tt le m en t ra th er tha n p ay in g i t o utto pl ai nt iff s.” Th e Edl es on co urt co nc lu de d: “ W it ho utm or e co nc ret e g ua ran te es , pl ai nt iff s . . . hav e g ot te n v ery li tt le inreturn fo r a wai ve r of cla im s ag ai ns t [AHS]. . . . Any set tl em en t m

us t g iv e th e p la in ti ff cl as s s om e ta ng ib le be ne fit s o r an un fet te redrig htto bri ng leg al cla im s ag ai ns t [AHS].” Im m ed ia te ly foll owi ng th e Edl es on co urt’s re jecti on of t he pro po se d se tt le m en t, two thi ng s h ap pe ne d: (1) th e p art ie s i n t hi s ca se res um edth ei r m ed ia te d s et tl em en t n eg ot ia ti on s, an d (2 ) th e Edl es on pl ai nt iff s m ov edforan in jun ct io n re qu iri ng AHS to ke ep reco rd s o f de ni edcla im s an d t o a m en d the ir co nt ract s wi thth e se rv ic e p ro vi de rs to de le te an y in cen ti ve s t o d eny

cla im s. So on aft er, the Edl es on co urt co nduc te d ahe ari ng on th e reque stforth e in jun ct io n. Befo re the Edl es on co urt ru le d o n t he in jun ct io n, h owe ve r, AHS reac he d a te nt at iv e se tt le m en t ag reem en t i n t hi s ca se . As a res ul t, the Edl es on co urt s ta y ed it s p ro ceed in gs to pe rm itth e d is tri ctco urt an op po rtu ni ty to m ak e a fai rn es s de te rm in at io n o n t he pro po se d a gr eem en t. Bas edon th e o ut co m e o f se tt le m en t n eg ot ia ti on s, the Fau gh ts am en de d t he ir cl as s ac ti on co m

pl ai ntto in cl ud e “ [a]ll pe rs on s wh o h av e h el d ares id en ti al ho m e 8warrant y

co nt ractfro m

AHS app li cab le to a ho us e wit hi n the Uni te d S tate s atan y ti m e si nc e Ju ne 21 , 20 01 .” The s et tl em en t ag reem en t h as sev eral bro ad si mil ari ti es with t he pro po se d Edl es on set tl em en t ag reem en t, i nc lu di ng th e pr op os edbu si ne ss pra ct ic e ch an ge s an d u se of an AHS-run Rev ie w Deskforth e res ub m is si onof d en ie d c la im s. As pa rt o f th e se tt le m en t, cl as s m em be rs for fei t th ei r ri gh t t o p art ic ip at e in cla ss act io n l aws ui ts ag ai ns t AHS an d i ns te adm us t pu rs ue an y

futur e cl ai m s i n i nd iv idua l l aws ui ts . In ex ch an ge , th ey rece iv e a nu m be r of be ne fit s, i nc lu di ng th e ri gh t t o re subm itcla im s t o t he Rev ie w Desk , st affi ng requi rem en ts de si gn edto m ak e th e Rev ie w Deskm or e eff ect iv e, an d li ti ga ti on in cen ti ve s ai m edat e ns ur in g t ha t AHS treat s cl ai m an ts fai rly. Clas s co un se l an d AHS s ep arat el y ne go ti at edth e cl as s co un se l’s fe e award . Thataward in cl ud eda $1 .5 m il li on lu m p s um pa ym en t p lu s 2 5% o f cl as s m em be rs ’ cas h award s fr om

th e Rev ie w Boa rdpro ces s. Ingra nt in g p rel im in ary ap pr ov al of t he set tl em en t, the di st ric t co urt de te rm in edth atth e p ro po se d s et tl em en t i s s ig ni fic an tl y m or e b en efi ci al to cla ss m em be rs th anth e Edl es on set tl em en t an d o rd eredno ti ce b e se ntto th e cl as s m em be rs . In t ot al , 1,5 43 cla ss m em be rs reque st edex cl us io n o r po te nt ia l ex cl us io n fo r anop t-o utrat e o f 0.0 33 %. Twenty -fo urcla ss m em be rs an d t he Sta te of Tex as fil edob jecti on s. 9Afte r co nduc ti ng a fai rn es s h eari ng , th e d is tri ctco urt ap pr ov edth e

se tt le m en t, b utres erv edrul in g o n apro vi si on th atall owe d t he Fau gh ts to bypas s th e Rev ie w Deskpro cedur es est ab li sh edby the set tl em en t an d t o c ol le cta lu m p su m pa ym en t fo r th ei r cl ai m s. Th e lu m p s um paym en t was inad di ti on to th e $1 0,0 00 in cen ti ve pa ym en t p ro vi de d fo r th e cl as s re pr es en ta ti ve s i n t he set tl em en t. The di st ric t co urt al so res erv edrul in g o n o bjec ti on s t o c la ss co un se l’s fe es . By sep arat e o rd er, the di st ric t co urt ad dr es se d t he ob jecti on s t o t he Fau gh ts ’ in cen ti ve pa ym en ts , th e p ro vi si on th atall owe d t he m to bypas s the Help Desk , and th e o bjec ti on to cla ss co un se l’s fe e award . The d is tri ctco urt uph el d the $1 0,0 00 in cen ti ve pa ym en t t o t he Fau gh ts , bu t s tru ckth e se tt le m en t p ro vi si on th ataward ed th e Fau gh ts $8 ,00 0 fo r th ei r cl ai m s an d e xe m pt edth em fro m see ki ng rel ie f th ro ug h t he Rev ie w Desk , apt ly not in g “ if t he Rev ie w Deskpro ces s i s g oo d en ou ghforth e Cl as s, i t i s g oo d e no ug h fo r th e Fau gh ts .” [R. 1 07 at 1 3.] The di st ric t co urt al so de te rm in edth atth e $ 1.5 m il li onfee p lu s 2 5% o f an y pa ym en ts m ad e to cla ss m em

be rs by the Rev ie w Deskwas areas on ab le fee. Fo urset s o f ob

jecto rs fil edap pe al s: (1) Tod d P et ti tt , Sharo n Lee , Mir ia m Ch ap on , andJo hn Ch ap on (th e “ Pet ti ttob jecto rs ”); (2) Ro be rt S he pard , Luz Sh ep ard , Jan etTzen dz al ia n, M erl yn Li nd , andRo sa lyn Urba ne k (t he “ Sh ep ard ob jecto rs ”); (3) Jo hn Howe, J en ny Hill , Jen ni fer Dea ch in , Mic ha el McKer le y , 10Ken ne th Beh ren d, Pa m el a Beh ren d, Sabr in a Will ia m s, J eff Will ia m s, an d J an et

W oo d (t he “ Howe o bjec to rs ”); an d (4 ) Tho m as Arrin gt on . Thei r ob jecti on s fa ll in to th e fo ll owi ng cat eg or ie s: (1) ob jecti on s t o t he cla ss no ti ce, (2 ) fai rn es s ch al le ng es to th e se tt le m en t, an d (3 ) ob jecti on s t o t he att orne y s’ fee awar d t o c la ss co un se l. II. Thi s co urt re vi ews a di st ric t co urt’s co nf irmatio n o f a cl as s ac ti on set tl em en t ag reem en t fo r anab us e o f di sc ret io n. In re C P Sh ip s Ltd. S

ec. Li ti g. , 57 8 F .3d 13 06 , 13 08 (11 th Cir . 20 09 ) (ab ro ga te d o n o th er g ro un ds byMor riso n v . Nat ’l Aus tral ia Ban k Ltd. , __

_ U.S. _

__ , 13 0 S . Ct. 2 86 9 (2 01 0) ). The “ ‘[p]rop on en ts of cl as s ac ti on set tl em en ts be ar the bu rd enof d ev el op in g areco rdde m on st rat in g t ha t th e se tt le m en t d is tri bu ti on is fai r, reas on ab le an d a de qu at e.’” Id . (qu ot in g Holmes v. Co nt ’l C

an Co . , 70 6 F .2d11 44 , 11 47 (11 th Cir . 19 83 )). III. A. Not ic e Fed eral Ru le of C iv il Pro cedur e 2 3 g ov ern s cl as s n ot ic e requi rem en ts . The st an da rdforth e ad equa cy of aset tl em en t n ot ic e in a cl as s ac ti on is m eas ur edby reas on ab le ne ss . Se e Fed . R. Civ . P. 23 (e). We hav e in te rp ret edRu le 23 to requi re th atcla ss m em

be rs be gi ve n “ in fo rm at io n re as on ab ly neces sary to m ak e a d eci si on 11[wh ethe r] to re m ai n acla ss m em be r an d b e b ou ndby the fin al jud gm en t o r op t o ut of th e act io n,” th ou ghth e n ot ic e n eedno t i nc lu de “ ev ery m at eri al fact ” o r be

“ ov erl y de ta il ed .” In re N

is sa n Mo to r C

or p. An ti tr us t Li ti

ga ti on , 55 2 F .2d10 88 , 11 04 –1 10 5 (5 th Cir . 19 77 ). In fa ct , we hav e rec og ni zedth at“ anov erl y de ta il ed 2 no ti ce” h as th e p ot en ti al to “ co nf us e cl as s m em

be rs an d i m

pe rm is si bl y

en cum be r th ei r ri gh ts to be ne fitfro m th e act io n.” Id . at 1 10 4. The Sh ep ardan d Ho we ob jecto rs co nt en d t ha t the cla ss no ti ce was in su ffi ci en t b ecau se itfai le d t o fu ll y in fo rm cla ss m em

be rs ab ou t the reas on s tha t th e p ro po se d s et tl em en t i n Edl es on was n otacce pt edby the Cal ifo rn iast at e co urt. The Sh ep ardob

jecto rs als o c on te ndth atth e n ot ic e sh ou ldha ve in fo rm edcla ss m em be rs th atth ere was a m ot io n fo r a t em po rary restrai ni ng ord er p en di ng in Edl es on . At or al arg um en t, the ob jecto rs su gg es te d we h ol d tha t s uc h i nf orm at io n is ne ces sa ry

wher e th e cu rren t s et tl em en t o fferan d t he pre vi ou sl y reject ed se tt le m en t o fferreac he d i n t he pa ral le l p ro ceed in gs are “ m at eri al ly” or

“ subs ta nt ia ll y ” si m il ar. As d is cu ss edinm or e d et ai l i n S ect io n II I.B., we do no t ag ree wi th th e o bjec to rs ’ pr em is e th atth e two ag reem en ts are s ub st an ti al ly sim il ar

In Bonner v. City of Prichard, 661 F.2d 1206, 1207 & 1209 (11th Cir. 1981) (e n banc) , 2 the Eleve nth Circuit adopted as bindingprec edent the de cisions of the F ifth Circuit render ed prior to Octobe r 1, 1981. 12an d c on cl ud e th at , what ev er the si m il ari ti es be twee n t he pro po se d s et tl em en ts , th e

di st ric t co urt d idno t ab us e it s d is cret io n i n app ro vi ng th e cl as s n ot ic e. The cla ss no ti ce i nc lu de s the fol lo win g re fere nc e to th e Edl es on set tl em en t: Youm ay ha ve rece iv eda se pa rat e se tt le m en t n ot ic e ear li er thi s year rel at in g t o a no th er ca se (Edl es on v. Am eri canHom e Sh ie ldof Cal ifo rn iaan d Am eri canHom e Sh ie ldCo rp or at io n, Ca se No. 37 -2 20 7- 00 07 12 5- CU-BT-C TL, pen di ng inth e Supe rio r Co urt o f th e St at e o f Cal ifo rn iaforth e Co un ty of SanDieg o) . The Ed le so n se tt le m en t h as be enterm in at ed , andis no lo ng er i n e ffec t. Thi s se tt le m en t re la te s t o t hi s ca se , whi chis di ffer en t fr om th e Edl es on cas e. Altho ug h c la ss m em

be rs m ig htha ve be ne fit te d fr om furth er i nf

orm at io n abo ut why the Edl es on set tl em en t was “ te rm in at ed ,” ou r rev ie w is li m it edto whethe r th e di st ric t co urt ab us edit s d is cret io n i n d ecl in in g t o re qu ire th atth e n ot ic e in cl ud e su chin fo rm at io n. We con cl ud e th atitdi d n ot . The n ot ic e m ak es cle ar tha t the pr op os ed Edl es on set tl em en t was no lo ng er i n e ffec t an d wo ul d n otpro vi de cla ss m em be rs an y rel ie f. Furth er, the no ti ce co nt ai ns de ta il edin fo rm at io n re ga rd in g cl ai m s co ve redby the set tl em en t ag reem en t an d the pro po se d p ro ces s fo r ad jud ic at in g c la im s. Itals o p ro vi de s i nf orm at io n re ga rd in g o pt -o utpro cedur es an d i ns tru ct io ns foracce ss in g awebs it e es tabl is he d fo r th e p ur po se of p ro vi di ng ad di ti on al in fo rm at io n re ga rd in g t he pro po se d s et tl em en t. Thu s, wh il e itwou ldbe eas y to po in t t o a ny num

be r of ad di ti on al da tapo in ts th atco ul d h av e b een

13in cl ud edinth e n ot ic e, we co nc lu de th atth e d is tri ctco urt d idno t ab us e it s

di sc ret io n i n fi nd in g t ha t the refe ren ce t o t he Edl es on ag reem en t an d t he ot he r in fo rm at io n o ut li ne d abo ve pro vi de d re as on ab le no ti ce u nd er the cir cu m st an ces . B. The Set tl em en t

“ Inrev ie win g t he va li di ty of a cl as s ac ti on set tl em en t, a d is tri ctco urt’s de ci si on wil l b e o ve rtu rn edon ly upo n acle ar s ho win g o f ab us e o f di sc ret io n.” Holmes v. Co nt ’l C

an Co . , 70 6 F .2d11 44 , 11 47 (11 thCir . 19 83 ). The d is tri ct co urt re vi ews a cl as s ac ti on set tl em en t fo r fai rn es s, re as on ab le ne ss , andad equa cy . In re C P Sh ip s Ltd. S

ec. Li ti g. , 57 8 F .3dat 1 31 4– 15 (ci ti ng Ben ne tt v. Behr in g Co rp . , 73 7 F .2d98 2, 9 86 (11 th Cir . 19 84 )). W e h av e in st ru ct edth e d is tri ctco urt to co ns id er the fol lo win g fa ct or s: (1) th e li ke li ho odof s uc ces s attri al ; (2 ) th e ran ge of p os si bl e rec ov ery; (3) th e ran ge of p os si bl e rec ov ery atwhi cha se tt le m en t i s fa ir, a de qu at e, an d re as on ab le ; (4 ) th e an ti ci pa te d c om pl ex it y , ex pe ns e, an d dur at io n o f li ti ga ti on ; (5 ) th e o pp os it io n t o t he set tl em en t; an d (6 ) th e st ag e o f pr oc eed in gs at wh ic h t he set tl em en t was ach ie ve d. Id . at 1 31 5. Man y of t he ob jecto rs ’ arg um en ts reg ard in g t he fai rn es s o f th e se tt le m en t rel y up on th e al le ge d s im il ari ty betweenth e Edl es on set tl em en t an d t hi s se tt le m en t, wh ic h, as no te d abo ve , we fin d far le ss strik in g t han t he ob jecto rs al le ge . The fo ll owi ng is a no n- ex haus ti ve li stof m at eri al di ffer en ces be twee n t he 14two set tl em en ts rel ie d upo n b y th e d is tri ctco urt i n fi nd in g, “ [t]he re ar e v al uabl e as pe ct s o f th is Set tl em en t tha t s im pl y were n otpre se ntinth e p rev io us ly-rejecte d Edl es on set tl em en t.” [ Dis t. Ct . Op., R. 10 5 a t 9 .] 1. Rev ie w Deskem

pl oyees a re re qu ire d t o h av e 3 y ears of e xp eri en ce, whe reas th e Edl es on ag reem en t co nt ai ne d n o s ti pu la te d qua li fic at io ns forit s em pl oyees. 2. The set tl em en t o bl ig at es AHS to ad d a dd it io na l cu st om er s erv ic e em pl oyees t o t he Rev ie w Deskif a fte r 15 0 d ay s AHS h as fai le d t o re sp on d t o 4 0% of th e cl ai m s wi th in 90 da y s o f subm is si on . Fiv e n ew rep res en ta ti ve s ar e requi red fo r ev ery 2,5 00 ov erdue subm is si on s u nt il 85 % of a ll cla im s ar e res po nd edto withi n 9 0 d ay s. Th e Edl es on ag reem en t d idno t p ro vi de forad di ti on al cu st om er se rv ic e rep res en ta ti ve s i n t he ev en t o f de la y s. 3. Rev ie w Deskem

pl oyees a re re qu ire d t o a dh ere t o t he fol lo win g gu id el in e in ad

jud ic at in g c la im s: Pri orde ni al s (i n wh ol e o r in pa rt) of c la im s re la ti ng to a fai lu re of a co ve redhe at in g o r ai r co nd it io ni ng syste m durin g t he fir sty ear o f a cu st om er’s co ntractwith AHS s ha ll be ov erturne d i f su chcla im s were d en ie d o ut rig htso le ly becau se of l ackof a nn ua l m ai nt en an ce (i.e . m ai nt en an ce tha t the m anuf actur er re co m

m en ds be do ne an nu al ly), pr ov ided

ho wev er , th atAHS sh al l re ta in th e d is cret io n t o co ns id er an y

rel ev an t fa ct orto de te rm in e th e type o r am ou ntof r el ie f to be off eredto th e cu st om er i n t he ev en t o f su chov erturni ng ; pr ov ided fu rthe r th atAHS m ay

co ns id er o th er re le va ntfact or s u nd er 15th e co ntractinde ci di ng whet he r orno t t o o ve rtu rna de ni edcla im ,

in cl ud in g e vi de nc e (o f an y type) o f la ckof m ai nt en an ce i n a ny tim e pe rio d wh ic h, i n AHS’s g oo d fa it h ju dg m en t, i s s uc h a s t o ri se to th e le ve l o f ab us e b y

cu m ul at iv e n eg le ct . [R. 3 7- 1 a t 5 1 (e m

ph as is inori gi na l).] The Edl es on ag reem en t co nt ai ne d n o sp eci fic gu id el in es to ass is t Re vi ew Des k e m pl oyees i n a dju di cat in g c la im s. 4. The set tl em en t co nt ai ns a nu m be r of li ti ga ti on ki ck ers th atcrea te st ro ng in cen ti ve s fo r AHS to pro pe rly set tl e cl ai m s thr ou gh th e Rev ie w Desk pr oc es s. Th e se tt le m en t al lo ws HVAC cl ai m an ts rep res en te d b y co un se l wh o a re award edm or e in a po st -s ub m is si onsu itth anwas o ffer edby the Rev ie w Deskto reco ve r at to rn ey s’ fees inad di ti on to an y co m pe ns at ory award . Atto rn ey s’ fees in th os e su it s ar e cap pe d a t $ 5,0 00 or t hr ee t im es th e d iff eren ce b etweenth e co m pe ns at ory da m ag es award edinth e su itan d t he to ta l v al ue of t he off er m ad e b y th e Rev ie w Desk , whi ch ev er i s g reat er. Unr ep res en te d HVAC cl ai m an ts an d a ll ot he r ap pl ia nc e cl ai m an ts are en ti tl edto a lu m p s um pa y m en t o f $1 ,00 0 i f th ey

are award edm or e in a po st -s ub m is si onsu itth anth ey were o ffer edth ro ug h t he Rev ie w Desk . The Edl es on set tl em en t d idno t co nt ai n a ny lit ig at io n k ic ke rs . 5. The set tl em en t d oe s n otrequi re cl as s m em be rs to wait12 0 d ay s fr om th ei r subm is si on to th e Rev ie w Deskto fil e su it . Clas s m em be rs have th e o pt io n

16of

for go in g t he Rev ie w Deskpro ces s al to ge th er an d m ay fil e anin di vi du al laws ui t. Des pi te th e subs ta nt ia l d iff eren ces be twee n t he two set tl em en ts , th e ob jecto rs co nt in ue to foc us onon e si m il ari ty—th e Rev ie w Desk —an d i gn or e th e pr ov is io ns th ateit he r requi re o r in cen ti vi ze the Rev ie w Deskto ha nd le cla im s pr op erl y . The o bjec to rs co nt inue to arg ue th atitis im pr op er t o p utAHS inch arg e of do li ng ou t the m on ey

be cau se itha s al read y

de m on st rat edth atitis in cap ab le of fai rly adjud ic at in g c la im s. Th ey cla im th e im pr ov em en ts are m erel y

“ win do w dr es si ng .” W e d is ag ree. Th e d is tri ctco urt’s tho ro ug h d is cu ss io n o f m any of t he se tt le m en t’s p ro vi si on s d em on st rat es th atitful ly und ers to odth e se tt le m en t an d di d n otab us e it s d is cret io n i n fi nd in g t he set tl em en t co nt ai ne d “ va lu ab le im pr ov em en ts ” o ve r th e Edl es on set tl em en t. The Pet ti ttob

jecto rs su gg es t tha t the di st ric t co urt fa il edto ad equa te ly co ns id er the pro te ct io ns av ai labl e to cla ss m em be rs un de r va rio us st at e co ns um er pr ot ect io n l aws be fo re co nc lu di ng th atth e se tt le m en t i s fa ir. Th ey co nt en d t he se tt le m en t i s u nr eas on ab le be cau se itstrip s cl as s m em be rs of t he ir c la ss rig ht s whi le fai li ng to res ol ve th ei r in di vi du al cla im s. Fo r ex am pl e, th e o bjec to rs co nt en d t ha t Ca li fo rn iacla ss m em be rs wil l fo rfei t the pro te ct io ns of t he att orne y s’ fees an d c la ss pro vi si on s i n C al ifo rn ia ’s Con su m ers Lega l Re m ed ie s Act

17(“ CLRA”), Ca l. Ci v. Co de § 1 75 0 et seq ., andth atth e se tt le m en t d oe s n ot ad equa te ly com

pe ns at e th em

forth e fo rfei tu re o f th os e p ro te ct io ns . 3 W e fi ndth es e arg um en ts un co nv in ci ng as C al ifo rn iacla ss m em be rs , li ke all cl as s m em

be rs , were fre e to op t o utof t he cla ss an d s ti ll ha ve th e o pt io n o f fo rg oi ng th e Rev ie w Deskan d fi li ng anin di vi du al su itun de r th ei r st at e co ns um er pr ot ect io ns st atut es . If, ho wev er, the y de ci de to res ub m itth ei r cl ai m s t o the Rev ie w Desk , as fo un d b y th e d is tri ctco urt, “ [c]las s [m ]em be rs st an d t o re cei ve fu ll co m pe ns at io n fo r th ei r cl ai m s . . . rathe r th anm ere p en ni es on th e d ol la r fo r a un ifo rm cas h p aym en t.” [ Dis t. Ct . Op., R. 10 5 a t 8 .] The Sh ep ardob

jecto rs als o c on te ndth atth e se tt le m en t i s v oi d b ecau se , at th e ti m e th e se tt le m en t was ori gi na ll y reac he d, AHS d idno t h av e th e au th or it y to en te r in to th e se tt le m en t wi th ou t the co ns en t o f th e Edl es on s’ cou ns el . This arg um en t d eri ve s fr om

th e te rm s o f a l et te r ag reem en t b etweenth e Edl es on s’ co un se l an d AHS wh ic h t he y all eg e p rev en te d AHS fr om set tl in g thi s ca se witho ut th ei r co ns en t. The Sh ep ardob jecto rs als o c it e a p ro vi si on fro m th e Edl es on se tt le m en t tha t the y

cla im lef t the Edl es on set tl em en t i n e ffec t u nt il writ te n n ot ic e of termin at io n was fil ed . Accor di ng ly, th ey arg ue th atth e Edl es on ag reem en t d id At times, the Pettit t objectors attempt to fra me this argument as a c halleng e to the district 3 court’s f indings with re spect to pre dominance a nd superiority . The objec tors have f ailed to demonstrate that variations betwe en state c onsumer prote ction laws under mine those finding s. 18no t t erm in at e whe n t he co urt re jecte d t he set tl em en t, b utrem ai ne d i n e ffec t u nt il it was form al ly term in at edsev eral da y s l at er, wh ic h was aft er AHS an d t he Fau gh ts si gn edth is set tl em en t ag reem en t. W e co nc lu de fro m

th e rec or d t ha t the di st ric t co urt co rrec tl y de te rm in edth at up on th e Cal ifo rn iaco urt’s re jecti onof t he Edl es on set tl em en t, the pro po se d se tt le m en t, the let te r ag reem en t, an d c ou ns el ’s st atus as “ cl as s co un se l” or “ le ad co un se l” were re nd eredvo id . There fo re, AHS was no t o bl ig at edto see k c ou ns el ’s ap pr ov al pri orto reac hi ng th is set tl em en t ag reem en t. C. Cl as s C ou ns el ’s Fee Award W e rev ie w a di st ric t co urt’s awar d o f at to rn ey s’ fees forab us e o f di sc ret io n. Ca mde n I C

on do . Ass oc ., Inc . v. Dun kl e , 94 6 F .2d76 8, 7 70 (11 th Cir . 19 91 ).

“ The di st ric t co urt ‘has gre atlat itud e inform ul at in g a tt orne y ’s fees award s s ub ject on ly to the ne ces si ty of ex pl ai ni ng it s re as on in g s o t ha t we ca n u nd ert ak e o ur rev ie w.’ ” W

at er s v. In t’l Prec io us Meta ls Co rp . , 19 0 F .3d12 91 , 12 93 (11 th Cir . 19 99 ) (quo ti ng McKen zi e v. Co op er , Levi ns &Pas tk

o, In c. , 99 0 F .2d11 83 , 11 84 (1 1t h C ir. 1 99 3) ).

“ [A]tto rn ey s’ fees award edfro m a co m m on fun d s ha ll be ba se d upo n a reas on ab le pe rcen ta ge of t he fun d e st ab li sh edfor th e b en efi t o f th e cl as s.” Ca mde n I , 94 6 F .2dat 7 74 . Andth is co urt h as oft enst at edth atth e m ajor ity of 19fees inth es e cas es are re as on ab le wher e th ey fal l b etween20 -2 5% o f th e cl ai m s. Id . Whe re the reque st edfee ex ceed s 2 5%, the co urt i s i ns tru ct edto ap pl y th e twel ve Jo hn so n fact or s. Id . The Jo hn so n fact or s i nc lu de : (1 ) th e ti m e an d l ab or requi red ; (2 ) th e d iff

ic ul ty of th e is su es ; (3 ) th e sk il l re qu ire d; (4) th e p recl us io n o f ot he r em pl oym en t b y

th e atto rn ey

be cau se he acce pt edth e cas e; (5) th e cu st om ary fee i n t he co m

m un it y ; (6 ) whe th er the fee i s fi xe d o r co nt in ge nt ; (7 ) ti m e li mit at io ns im

po se d b y th e cl ie ntor c irc um st an ces ; (8 ) th e am ou ntin vo lv edan d th e res ul ts ob ta in ed ; (9 ) th e ex pe rie nc e, rep ut at io n, an d abi li ty of th e at to rn ey s; (1 0) th e und es irabi li ty of th e cas e; (11 ) th e n atur e an d l en gth o f th e p ro fes si on al rel at io ns hi p wi th th e cl ie nt ; an d (1 2) award s i n s im il ar ca se s. Hen sl ey v. Ecker ha rt , 46 1 U.S. 4 24 , 43 0 n .3, 1 03 S. Ct. 1 93 3, 1 93 8 n .3 (1 98 3) (ci ti ng Jo hn so n v . Ga. Highw ayExpr es s, In c. , 48 8 F .2d71 4, 7 17 –1 9 (5 thCir .19 74 )). As d is cu ss edab ov e, th e d is tri ctco urt ap pr ov edanatt orne y s’ fee awar d wi th two co m po ne nt s: (1) a $1 .5 m il li on lum p s um pa iddi rect ly by

AHS to cla ss co un se l as pa ym en t fo r th e b us in es s p ract ic e ch an ge s re se arch edan d n eg ot ia te d b y cl as s co un se l fo r th e b en efi t o f th e cl as s, an d (2 ) 25 % of t he m on et ary co m pe ns at io n re cei ve d b y

cla ss m em

be rs th ro ug h t he Rev ie w Deskpro ces s. Inap pr ov in g t he fee awa rd , th e d is tri ctco urt b eg anby citi ng well -s et tl ed la w fro m th is co urt tha t 2 5% i s g en eral ly recog ni zedas areas on ab le fee awardin 20co m

m on fun d c as es . Se e, e.g ., W at er s , 19 0 F .3dat 1 29 4 (“ The m ajor it y of co m m on fun d fe e award s fa ll be twee n 2 0% t o 3 0% o f th e fu nd .”). The d is tri ct co urt d idno t s ep arat el y

an al yze wh ethe r th e 2 5% award edhe re was a reas on ab le fee i n i ts el f, bu t d et erm in edth atbe cau se 25 % is ge ne ral ly accep te d a s re as on ab le in co m m on fun d c as es , se e Ca mde n I , 94 6 F .2dat 7 74 , itsh ou ldals o b e co ns id eredreas on ab le inth is cas e. The d is tri ctco urt the n turne d i ts att en ti on to th e $ 1.5 mil li on lu m

p s um awardth atto okth e to ta l fe e awardab ov e th e 2 5% be nc hm arkan d t ho ro ug hl y an al yzedth atam ou ntun de r th e Jo hn so n fact or s. Th e di st ric t co urt al so po in te d o utth atto th e ex te ntth e $ 1.5 m il li onm ad e th e to ta l fe es ex ceed25 % of t he co m

m on fun d, i t s ho ul d n otbe vi ewedne ga ti ve ly for two reas on s. Fi rs t, the $1 .5 m il li on di d n otco m e fro m th e m on ey

setasi de forth e cl as s; rathe r, itis a se pa rat e lu m p s um fro m AHS to cla ss co un se l. Sec on d, the di st ric t co urt n ot edth atth e $ 1.5 m il li onwas i nt en de d t o c om pe ns at e cl as s co un se l fo r ad di ti on al workpe rfo rm edan d v al ue ad de d t o the set tl em en t, s pe ci fic al ly, th e work d on e in ch an gi ng AHS’ s b us in es s p ract ic es an d i n e st ab li sh in g ast at e o f th e artcen te r to fie ldcla ss m em be r in qu iri es reg ard in g t he set tl em en t. The co urt cal cu la te d t he ho ur s an d t he rat es of t he att orne y s an d s ta ff wo rk in g o n t he cla im s an d d et erm in edth atth e $ 1.5 m il li on was ave ry sm al l am ou ntco m

pa redto th e am ou ntof m on ey

in ve st edinth e cas e. 21The di stric t co urt fu ll y ex am in edall of t he rel ev an t fa ct or s an d l aw in as se ss in g t he att orne y s’ fee awar d. Th e d is tri ctco urt ci te d re le va ntpre ced en t fr om ou r ci rcu itan d o th ers th atde ta il edfee awa rd s i n o th er cl as s ac ti on laws ui ts . The co urt d is cu ss edinde ta il th e work p la in ti ffs ’ co un se l d idforth e cl as s, o ut li ni ng th e nu m be rs of p ho ne cal ls , em ai ls , andlet te rs th ey rece iv edan d a ns wered . Alth ou gh no t d et ai le d i n the ord er, the di st ric t co urt al so de vo te d asi gn ifi can t am ou ntof ti m e atth e fai rn es s h eari ng to rece iv in g t es ti m on y on th e v al ue cla ss co un se l ad de d t o t he set tl em en t b y co nt in ui ng to ne go ti at e wit h AHS an d i ts co un se l reg ard in g c ha ng es inbu si ne ss pra ct ic es . Tho se pra ct ic es co nt in ue to be im pl em en te d a ndne go ti at ed . The d is tri ctco urt co ns id eredan d d is cu ss edinde ta il each of t he twel ve Jo hn so n fact or s. The ob jecto rs co nt en d t ha t the fix edfee o f $1 .5 m il li on pu ts th is cas e ou ts id e o f th e 2 5% fe e th atth is cir cu itha s s ai d i s the be nc hm ark . The o bjec to rs al so po in t o utth atbe cau se th ere i s n o fi xe d c omm on fun d e st ab li sh edby thi s se tt le m en t, the re i s n o way to d et erm in e b y whatpe rcen ta ge th e ad di ti on al $1 .5 m il li on in crea se s the att orne y s’ fee awar d. Th es e arg um en ts ig no re the di st ric t co urt’s fi nd in g t ha t the $1 .5 m il li on pa ym en t i s d es ig ne d t o c om pe ns at e th e cl as s co un se l fo r th e n on -m on et ary be ne fit s the y ach ie ve d fo r th e cl as s— li ke co m pa ny22wid e p ol ic y

ch an ge s an d app li an ce an d s y st em rep la cem en ts an d re pa irs , to whi ch th e 2 5% fe e is no t ap pl ie d. The Sh ep ardob

jecto rs arg ue th atth e fee is un fai r be cau se itall ows cla ss co un se l t o p ro fitfro m

th e work o f an ot he r la w firm , sp eci fic al ly the firm th at rep res en te d t he Edl es on pl ai nt iff s. No tabl y , cou ns el forth e Sh ep ardob jecto rs is th e at to rn ey

who rep res en te d t he Edl es on pl ai nt iff s. Alt ho ug h i t m ay

be th e cas e th atso m e o f th e work d on e in reac hi ng th is pa rti cu la r se tt le m en t was aid edby the work p erfo rm edby the Edl es on s’ att orne y s, tha t d oe s n otm ak e th e fee award edto cl as s co un se l u nr eas on ab le . As is cle ar fro m th e p rev io us di sc us si on , th is se tt le m en t co nt ai ns a nu m be r of ne w pro vi si on s tha t ad d s ig ni fic an t v al ue to th e se tt le m en t. Fi na ll y , th e Sh ep ardob

jecto rs co nt en d t ha t the fees are u nf ai r be cau se th ey are d iff eren t tha n t he fee s tru ctur e inth e Edl es on set tl em en t, a $ 2.7 m il li on fla t fee. Th is arg um en t fa il s t o p res en t an y leg al ba si s fo r reject in g t he fee awa rd . To th e ex te ntth e Sh ep ardob jecto rs are i nt eres te d i n s av in g AHS m on ey , we fin d t he ir co nc ernun ne ces sa ry . If, ho wev er, the y are co nc ern edab ou t co ll us io n, the di st ric t co urt co ns id eredall th e fac ts an d c irc um st an ces an d fo un d tha t the re h adbe enno co ll us io n. It s fi nd in g i s n otcle arl y erro ne ou s. IV. 23Fo r th e rea so ns gi ve n abo ve an d t ho se st at edinth e wel l-r eas on edop in io n

en te redby the di st ric t co urt, we af firm th e jud gm en t o f th e d is tri ctco urt. AFFIRMED.

24