In re Ky. Grilled Chicken Coupon Mktg. & Sales Practices Litig.

• Decision Date: 16 November 2011
• Docket Number: Case No. 1:09-cv-7670,MDL 2103
• Court: U.S. District Court — Northern District of Illinois
• Parties: In re Kentucky Grilled Chicken Coupon Marketing & Sales Practices Litigation, THIS DOCUMENT RELATES TO ALL CLASS ACTIONS

In re Kentucky Grilled Chicken Coupon Marketing & Sales Practices Litigation,

THIS DOCUMENT RELATES TO ALL CLASS ACTIONS

MDL 2103

Case No. 1:09-cv-7670

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS EASTERN DIVISION

Dated: November 16, 2011

Hon. James F. Holderman

PLAINTIFFS' MOTION & MEMORANDUM IN SUPPORT OF FINAL APPROVAL OF

CLASS ACTION SETTLEMENT, AND APPROVAL OF ATTORNEYS' FEES AND

INCENTIVE AWARD

Jay Edelson

Michael J. McMorrow

EDELSON MCGUIRE LLC

Attorneys for Plaintiffs and the Settlement Class

TABLE OF CONTENTS

INTRODUCTION................................................................................1

I. NATURE OF THE LITIGATION................................................................................3

1. Plaintiffs' Allegations & the Litigation History..................................................3

2. The Settlement Conferences and Further Negotiations......................................4

II. TERMS OF THE SETTLEMENT...............................................................................5

1. Class Definition................................................................................................... 5

2. Payment by Defendants....................................................................................... 6

3. Payment of Claims of Class Members.................................................................6

4. Additional Relief.................................................................................................6

5. The Release.........................................................................................................7

III. THE IMPLEMENTED NOTICE PLAN COMPORTS WITH DUE PROCESS.......8

IV. THE SETTLEMENT WARRANTS FINAL APPROVAL........................................10

1. The Strength of the Plaintiffs' Case Compared to Settlement Weighs in Favor of Granting Approval..............................................................................11

2. The Likelihood of An Increase in the Complexity, Length, And Expense of Continued Litigation Validates the Approval of the Settlement........................14

3. There Has Been Almost No Opposition to the Settlement.................................15

4. The Opinion Of Competent Counsel Favors Approval......................................16

5. The Stage of The Proceedings And The Amount of Discovery Completed Weigh in Favor of Final Approval of the Settlement ........................................ 17

V. ATTORNEYS' FEES & INCENTIVE AWARDS.....................................................18

1. The Requested Attorneys' Fees are Reasonable Whether Calculated Under Either the Percentage of the Benefit Analysis or the Lodestar Method............. 18

A. The Requested Fees Represent Under 33% of the Common Benefit Provided to the Class—a Percentage Well Below Market and the Range that has Been Found Reasonable by the courts.......................21

B. The Requested Fees are Equally Appropriate Under the LodestarMethod..................................................................................................22

2. The Incentive Award to the Class Representatives is Reasonable and Should be Approved..........................................................................................26

VI. THE CANNATA OBJECTION SHOULD BE OVERRULED.................................26

1. The Settlement Agreement Has Been Thoroughly Scrutinized.........................28

2. Certification of the Class for Settlement Purposes Was Appropriate ................ 29

3. Sufficient Information Exists to Determine the Reasonableness of Fees.......... 32

4. The Cy Pres Recipients are Appropriate...........................................................34

CONCLUSION.......................................................................................................................35

TABLE OF AUTHORITIES

United States Supreme Court Cases

Amchem Products Inc. v. Windsor, 521 U.S. 591 (1997).....................................................30, 31

Am. Airlines, Inc. v. Wolens, 513 U.S. 219 (1995) ....................................................................30

Boeing Co. v. Van Gemert, 444 U.S. 472 (1980) ................................................................ 19, 20

Cipollone v. Liggett Group, Inc., 505 U.S. 504 (1992)..............................................................30

Eisen v. Carlisle & Jacquelin, 417 U.S. 156 (1974).....................................................................8

Hensley v. Eckerhart, 461 U.S. 424 (1983)...............................................................................22

Missouri v. Jenkins, 491 U.S. 274 (1989) .................................................................................19

United States Circuit Court of Appeals Cases

Armstrong v. Bd. of Sch. Dirs., 616 F.2d 305 (7th Cir.1980).....................................................10

Cook v. Niedert, 142 F.3d 1004 (7th Cir. 1998) ..................................................................23, 26

Denius v. Dunlap, 330 F.3d 919 (7th Cir. 2003) .......................................................................22

E.E.O.C. v. Hiram Walker & Sons, Inc., 768 F.2d 884 (7th Cir. 1985)......................................10

Felzen v. Andreas, 134 F.3d 873 (7th Cir.1998)........................................................................10

Florin v. Nationsbank of Ga., N.A., 34 F.3d 650 (7th Cir. 1994) ...............................................19

Gaskill v. Gordon, 160 F.3d 361 (7th Cir. 1998).......................................................................21

Gastineau v. Wright, 592 F.3d 747 (7th Cir. 2010) .............................................................22, 23

Harman v. Lyphomed, Inc., 945 F.2d 969 (7th Cir. 1991) .........................................................23

In re Bridgestone/Firestone, Inc., 288 F.3d 1012 (7th Cir. 2002)..............................................30

In re Synthroid Mktg. Litig., 264 F.3d 712 (7th Cir. 2001) .................................................. 18, 26

In re Trans Union Corp. Privacy Litig., 629 F.3d 741 (7th Cir. 2011) ......................................18

In re Warfarin Sodium Antitrust Litig., 391 F.3d 516 (3d Cir. 2004).........................................31

Isby v. Bayh, 75 F.3d 1191 (7th Cir. 1996) ........................................................................passim

Jeffboat, LLC v. Director, Office of Workers' Comp. Progs., 553 F.3d 487 (7th Cir. 2009) ......22

Kirchoff v. Flynn, 786 F.2d 320 (7th Cir. 1986) ........................................................................19

Lemon v. Int'l Union of Operating Eng'g., 216 F.3d 577 (7th Cir. 2000) ..................................31

Mirfasihi v. Fleet Mortg. Corp., 356 F.3d 781 (7th Cir. 2004) ........................................8, 33, 34

Montgomery v. Aetna Plywood, Inc., 231 F.3d 399 (7th Cir. 2000) ...........................................18

Skelton v. Gen. Motors Corp., 860 F.2d 250 (7th Cir. 1988) ......................................... 19, 20, 23

Sutton v. Bernard, 504 F.3d 688 (7th Cir. 2007) ................................................................. 18, 19

Synfuel Techs., Inc. v. DHL Express (USA), Inc., 463 F.3d 646 (7th Cir. 2006) .................. 11, 18

Taubenfeld v. AON Corp., 415 F.3d 597 (7th Cir. 2005) ...........................................................18

Uhl v. Thoroughbred Tech. & Telecomms., Inc., 309 F.3d 978 (7th Cir. 2002) .........................10

United States District Court Cases

Am. Civil Liberties Union v. United States Gen. Servs. Admin., 235 F. Supp. 2d 816 N.D. Ill. 2002) ..............................................................................................................15

Garner v. State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co., CV-08-1365 CW (EMC), 2010 WL 1687832 (N.D. Cal. Apr. 22, 2010)..............................................................................................15

Hartless v. Clorox Co., 273 F.R.D. 630 (S.D. Cal. 2011)..............................................27, 31, 33

Hispanics United of DuPage Co. v. Vill. of Addison, 988 F. Supp. 1130 (N.D. Ill. 1997) .... 15, 16

In re AT&T Mobility Wireless Data Services Litig., 270 F.R.D. 330 (N.D. Ill. 2010).......8, 11, 17

In re AT&T Mobility Wireless Data Services Sales Tax Litig., 789 F. Supp. 2d 935 (N.D. Ill. 2011) .............................................................................................................31

In re HP Inkjet Printer Litig, No. 05-03580 (N.D. Cal. 2011) ..................................................27

In re JPMorgan Chase & Co. Sec. Litig., No. 06 C 4674, 2009 WL 537062 (N.D. Ill. Mar. 3, 2009)................................................................................................................11

In re Lawnmower Engine Horsepower Mktg. & Sales Practices Litig. , 733 F. Supp. 2d 997 (E.D. Wis. 2010) ...................................................................................................11

In re Linerboard Antitrust Litig., No. 98-5055, 2004 WL 1221350 (E.D. Pa. Jun. 2, 2004).................................................................................................................23

In re Mexico Money Transfer Litig., 164 F. Supp. 2d 1002 (N.D. Ill. 2000) ............ 14, 15, 21, 34

In re Quantcast Adv. Cookie Litig., No. 10-5484 (C.D. Cal. 2011) ...........................................27

In re Trans Union Corp. Privacy Litig., MDL 1350, No. 00 C 4279, 2009 WL 4799954 (N.D. Ill. Dec. 9, 2009) ........................................................................................... 18, 19

Lipuma v. Am. Express Co., 406 F. Supp. 2d 1298 (S.D. Fla. 2005).............................. 11, 13, 17

Mangone v. First USA Bank, 206 F.R.D. 222 (S.D. Ill. 2001) ...................................................17

Marsikyan v. Mercedes-Benz, USA, LLC, No. 08-04876 (C.D. Cal. 2010) ................................27

Masters v. Lowe's Home Centers, Inc., No. 09-0255 (S.D....