In re LivingSocial Marketing and Sales Practices Litigation

Case # 11-mc-00472
Case Name In re LivingSocial Marketing and Sales Practices Litigation
Jurisdiction US District Court for DC
Summary

LivingSocial is a service that promotes businesses by partnering with them and sending out gift certificates for users to purchase to receive a discount at the retail partner.  However, these gift certificates generally feature exceptionally short expiration dates.  Federal law prohibits the issuance of gift certificates with expiration dates of less than five years (The Electronic Funds Transfer Act and the Credit Card Accountability Responsibility and Disclosure Act).  Moreover, many state laws prevent the issuance of gift certificates with any expiration date.  Plaintiffs allege that, by including these expiration dates, LivingSocial and its retail partners were able to realize windfall profits from users who bought a certificate did not redeem it before the expiration date.

Final Approval Date 03/22/2013
Result
  1. Final Approval granted.
  2. Objections to the settlement were overruled.
  3. Objections to the fee award were upheld, with attorneys' fees being reduced to $1.35 million, plus $43,297.18 in costs.
  4. Objector De La Garza (through Attorney Bandas) and Objectors Melton and Perle (pro se) appealed the Final Approval.
  5. The Melton and Perle appeal was dismissed for lack of prosecution.
  6. The De La Garza appeal was voluntarily dismissed.
Dismissal of Last Appeal 11/19/2013
Attachments Docket Report.pdf
Consolidated Amended Class Action Complaint.pdf
Preliminary Approval Order.pdf
Plaintiff's Response to Objections.pdf
Memorandum and Opinion.pdf
Final Judgment.pdf
Added to Index
Last Updated

Objection of Jeremy de la Garza

Objectors Jeremy de la Garza
Signers Christopher A. Bandas
Attorneys Christopher A. Bandas
Summary
  1. Cy pres is illegal and funds should escheat to the federal government.
  2. It is unfair for cy pres funds to go to third parties rather than class members.
  3. Attorneys' fees are excessive.
  4. "Quick pay" provisions benefit the attorneys at the expense of the class.
  5. Attorneys' fee distribution plan is improper.
Attachments Objection of Jeremy de la Garza.pdf
Appeal of Objector de la Garza.pdf
Bandas Request for Extension.pdf
Dismissal of de la Garza Appeal.pdf
De La Garza Appeal Docket.pdf
Added to Index
Last Updated

Objection of Michelle Melton, Cery Perle

Objectors Michelle Melton
Cery Perle
Signers Michelle Melton
Cery Perle
Attorneys
Summary
  1. Cy pres recipients do not promote class members' interests.
  2. Attorneys' fees are excessive and improperly calculated.
  3. "Quick pay" provisions benefit the attorneys at the expense of the class.
  4. Attorneys' fee distribution plan is improper.

NOTE:  This appeal was dismissed for failure to prosecute.

NOTE:  Both of these objectors are also frequently linked to Attorney Joseph Darrell Palmer.

Attachments Objection of Michelle Melton and Cery Perle.pdf
Appeal of Objectors Melton and Perle.pdf
Dismissal of Melton and Perle Appeal.pdf
Melton and Perle Appeal Docket.pdf
Added to Index
Last Updated

Objection of Frederic R. Fletcher

Objectors Frederic R. Fletcher
Signers Frederic R. Fletcher
Attorneys
Summary
  1. Relief is insufficient when compared to the release.
  2. Injunctive relief attempts to circumvent existing law.
  3. Venue is improper.
  4. Attorneys' fees are excessive.
Attachments Objection of Frederic Fletcher.pdf
Added to Index
Last Updated

Objection of Katherine T. Schaffzin

Objectors Katherine T. Schaffzin
Signers Katherine T. Schaffzin
Attorneys
Summary
  1. Settlement requires class members to forfeit the value of their vouchers to remain in the class.
  2. Class representatives are inadequate.
  3. Notice plan provides insufficient information to class members.
Attachments Objection of Katharine T. Schaffzin.pdf
Added to Index
Last Updated