Opinion ID: 162883
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Adequacy of Representation and Conflicts of Interest

Text: 27 Rule 23(a) demands that the representative parties will fairly and adequately protect the interests of the class. Fed.R.Civ.P. 23(a)(4). Resolution of two questions determines legal adequacy: (1) do the named plaintiffs and their counsel have any conflicts of interest with other class members and (2) will the named plaintiffs and their counsel prosecute the action vigorously on behalf of the class? Hanlon, 150 F.3d at 1020; see also Amchem Prods., Inc. v. Windsor, 521 U.S. 591, 626 n. 20, 117 S.Ct. 2231, 138 L.Ed.2d 689 (1997) (The adequacy heading also factors in competency and conflicts of class counsel.). 28 Objectors argue the district court abused its discretion in certifying the settlement classes, because the class representatives, and Plaintiffs' counsel, failed to adequately represent the classes and/or suffered conflicts of interest. Objectors particularly focus on Plaintiffs' counsel, alleging numerous conflicts of interest. Appellants' Op. Br. at 28. The district court carefully examined this argument, and concluded the Court finds that Plaintiffs' Counsel has vigorously and competently represented all class members. Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law at 5-6, App. Vol. XV, tab 131 at 4786-87. Indeed, as Plaintiffs point out, Objectors fail to demonstrate why, given the fact that the court, not the parties, determined the allocation of the settlement between the various subgroups, any alleged conflict between those subgroups would be magnified or exacerbated by the fact that Plaintiffs' counsel represented all the groups. Rather, that situation would motivate Plaintiffs' counsel to seek the largest overall award possible. 29 Further, as Defendants point out, each subgroup had its own class representative during settlement negotiations, and the fairness expert spent considerable time reviewing the details of the settlement and the allocation, including recommending some modifications, which the district court accepted. See Amchem Prods., Inc., 521 U.S. 591, 627, 117 S.Ct. 2231, 138 L.Ed.2d 689 (1997) (noting that a settlement needs structural assurance of fair and adequate representation for the diverse groups and individuals affected). Additionally, Objectors themselves and their counsel argued strenuously on behalf of the RIOs and ORIOs, the two subgroups involved in the Texas cases. See Gottlieb v. Wiles, 11 F.3d 1004, 1008 n. 4 (10th Cir.1993), overruled in part on other grounds, Devlin v. Scardelletti, 536 U.S. 1, 122 S.Ct. 2005, 153 L.Ed.2d 27 (2002) (noting that any claim of inadequacy of representation was cured by the [objectors'] active participation in the Rule 23(e) settlement approval hearing and by the district court's explicit addressing of the [objectors'] objections in its order approving settlement.). Given the district court's familiarity with the case, we perceive no abuse of discretion in its conclusion that the adequacy requirement of Rule 23(a)(1) is satisfied in every respect and that no disabling conflicts exist here. Id. at 6. 30