Herfert et al v. Crayola

Case # 11-cv-01301
Case Name Herfert et al v. Crayola
Jurisdiction US District Court for W.D. WA
Summary

Crayola retailed a line of "Washable Colored Bubbles." Consumers can reasonably believe that this colored bubble solution will not stain clothing and other household products it comes in contact to, with moderate washing.

Plaintiffs allege that this product is not washable as advertised. The products thus have no value and customers had property damaged and lost significant time and money attempting to remove the stains.

Final Approval Date 04/27/2012
Result
  1. Final Approval granted.
  2. Objector Pederson appealed the Final Approval (pro se).
  3. The Court ordered Objector Pederson to file a $20,000 appeal bond, repeatedly denying appeals of that order and motions to stay.
  4. The Court noted the appeal appeared "vexatious and frivolous." (see document 18 below, page 2).
  5. Under threat of appeal bond, Objector Pederson withdrew her appeal.
Dismissal of Last Appeal 09/26/2012
Attachments First Amended Class Action Complaint.pdf
Preliminary Approval.pdf
Plaintiff's Response to Objection.pdf
Final Approval.pdf
Docket Report.pdf
Added to Index
Last Updated

Objection of Amber Pederson

Objectors Amber Pederson
Signers Amber Pederson
Attorneys Christopher A. Bandas
Joseph Darrell Palmer
Steve Dashiak
Summary
  1. Benefit to the class is illusory, since the Defendant already reformulated their product.
  2. There is no guaranteed minimum payout.
  3. Settlement fund is insufficient.
  4. Attorneys' fees are excessive.

DISCUSSION OF ATTORNEYS: Objector Pederson filed her objection pro se. However, her affidavit in support of her objection was signed in the presence of a notary public who is an employee of Christopher Bandas (see document 4). Mr. Bandas subsequently represented to Class Counsel and to the Court that he was the attorney for Ms. Pederson (see document 9, page 3). He was ordered to attend the hearing on appeal bond but did not, since it interfered with a "sailing trip" (ibid). Steve Dashiak served as Ms. Pederson's local counsel for the duration of the appeal (see document 8). Joseph Darrell Palmer applied for a pro hac vice admission, which was ultimately denied because he failed to disclose, under penalty of perjury, that he had been convicted of a felony and his temporary suspension by the Colorado, Arizona, and California bar. He also failed to appear at a mandated hearing. Mr. Palmer blamed the error on his application on a mistake by his assistant, though the document bore his signature (see documents 5, 14, 15).  The Court noted that "[a]ny professional should know better than to blame his assistant for such a serious misstatement in a document containing his own signature" (see document 15, page 1).

Attachments 1 - Objection of Amber Pederson.pdf
2 - Appeal of Objector Pederson.pdf
3 - Motion to Require Appeal Bond.pdf
4 - Declaration in Support of Motion to Require Appeal Bond.pdf
5 - Joseph Darrell Palmer Pro Hac Vice Application.pdf
6 - Response to Motion to Require Appeal Bond.pdf
7 - Reply to Response to Motion to Require Appeal Bond.pdf
8 - Steve Dashiak Appearance.pdf
9 - Transcript of Appeal Bond Hearing.pdf
10 - Approval of Appeal Bond.pdf
11 - Amended Notice of Appeal (Re Appeal Bond).pdf
12 - Motion to Stay Appeal Bond.pdf
13 - Order Requiring Appeal Bond and Appearance by Attorney Palmer.pdf
14 - Joseph Darrell Palmer Pro Hac Vice Application (Amended).pdf
15 - Denial of Joseph Darrell Palmer Pro Hac Vice Application (Amended).pdf
16 - Response to Motion to Stay Appeal Bond.pdf
17 - Reply to Response to Motion to Stay Appeal Bond.pdf
18 - Denial of Motion to Stay Appeal Bond.pdf
19 - Withdrawal of Objection of Amber Pederson.pdf
20 - Dismissal of Appeal.pdf
Added to Index
Last Updated