In re: Pre-Filled Propane Tank Marketing and Sales Prac. Litig. (Ferrellgas Settlement)

Case # 09-md-02086
Case Name In re: Pre-Filled Propane Tank Marketing and Sales Prac. Litig. (Ferrellgas Settlement)
Jurisdiction US District Court for W.D. MO
Summary

Defendants Ferrellgas (d/b/a Blue Rhino) and Amerigas retail pre-filled propane tanks at numerous national retailers. Beginning in 2000, these propane tanks were filled with 17 pounds of propane and marketed as full. In approximately July 2008, the Defendants began filling their tanks with 15 pounds of propane (instead of 17 pounds) but did not change the price of the product, nor make clear to the customer that the amount of propane they were receiving had diminished.

Plaintiffs allege that, by colluding with their competitors, Defendants are guilty of anti-trust violations.

NOTE: This page is related to the In re: Pre-Filled Propane Tank Marketing and Sales Prac. Litig. (Amerigas Settlement) page.

Final Approval Date 05/31/2012
Result
  1. Final Approval granted.
  2. Judge required a $25,000 appeal bond for all appeals.
  3. All appeals were dismissed by the parties.
Dismissal of Last Appeal 11/27/2012
Attachments Class Action Complaint.pdf
Preliminary Approval.pdf
Plaintiff's Response to Objections.pdf
Reply to Plaintiff's Response to Objections.pdf
Final Approval.pdf
Final Judgement.pdf
Response to Motion to Stay Appeal Bond.pdf
Reply to Response to Motion to Stay Appeal Bond.pdf
Voluntary Dismissal of Cleusman and Cain Appeal.pdf
Motion to Dismiss All Appeals.pdf
Docket Report.pdf
Added to Index
Last Updated

Objection of Bert Chapa

Objectors Bert Chapa
Signers Jeffrey B. Tonkin
Attorneys Jeffrey B. Tonkin
Christopher A. Bandas
Summary
  1. Requirement that objectors provide a proof of purchase is unfairly burdensome.
  2. Settlement unfairly favors the Defendant.
  3. Claims process is unduly burdensome.
  4. Attorneys' fees are excessive.
Attachments Objection of Bert Chapa.pdf
Christopher Bandas Pro Hac Admission for Chapa Objector.pdf
Motion to Stay Appeal Bond by Chapa and Liuzzi.pdf
Appeal of Objectors Jenson and Paul (Amended to include Chapa and Liuzzi).pdf
Added to Index
Last Updated

Objection of Frank Liuzzi, Sulekha Anand

Objectors Frank Liuzzi
Sulekha Anand
Signers Jeffrey B. Tonkin
Attorneys Jeffrey B. Tonkin
Christopher A. Bandas
Summary
  1. Requirement that objectors provide a proof of purchase is unfairly burdensome.
  2. Settlement unfairly favors the Defendant.
  3. Claims process is unduly burdensome.
  4. Attorneys' fees are excessive.
Attachments Objection of Frank Liuzzi and Sulekha Anand.pdf
Appeal of Objectors Jenson and Paul (Amended to include Chapa and Liuzzi).pdf
Added to Index
Last Updated

Objection of John Lofink

Objectors John Lofink
Signers John Lofink
Attorneys
Summary
  1. Class action is not the proper venue for this litigation.
  2. Attorneys' fees are excessive.
Attachments Objection of John Lofink.pdf
Added to Index
Last Updated

Objection of Kristina Newman

Objectors Kristina Newman
Signers Kristina Newman
Attorneys Kristina Newman
Summary
  1. Claims process unfairly limits number of claims an individual can make.
  2. Attorneys' fees are excessive.
  3. Requirement that objectors provide a proof of purchase is unfairly burdensome.
Attachments Objection of Kristina Newman.pdf
Appeal of Cox et al Objectors.pdf
Added to Index
Last Updated

Objection of Marty Jenson, Alison Paul

Objectors Marty Jenson
Alison Paul
Signers Kenneth E. Nelson
Attorneys Kenneth E. Nelson
Summary
  1. Requirement that Objectors appear at the Fairness Hearing to preserve their right to appeal is unfairly burdensome.
  2. Notice system is inadequate and will artificially deflate claims numbers.
  3. Attorneys' fees are excessive and improperly calculated.
Attachments Objection of Marty Jenson and Alison Paul.pdf
Objection of Marty Jenson and Alison Paul (Part 2).pdf
Motion to Stay Appeal Bond by Jenson and Paul.pdf
Appeal of Objectors Jenson and Paul.pdf
Appeal of Objectors Jenson and Paul (Amended to include Chapa and Liuzzi).pdf
Response to Objection of Marty Jenson and Alison Paul (Part 2).pdf
Appeal of Objectors Jenson and Paul.pdf
Appeal of Objectors Jenson and Paul (Amended to include Chapa and Liuzzi).pdf
Added to Index
Last Updated

Objection of Thomas L. Cox Jr.

Objectors Thomas L. Cox Jr.
Signers Thomas L. Cox Jr.
John T. Davis
John B. Boyd
Attorneys Thomas L. Cox Jr.
John T. Davis
John B. Boyd
Summary
  1. Proving class membership is unduly burdensome.
  2. Requirements to produce a proof of purchase to receive maximum settlement is unduly burdensome.
  3. Settlement funds are unfairly awarded to cy pres recipients.
  4. Attorneys' fees are excessive.
  5. Relief to class members is illusory,
Attachments Objection of Thomas L. Cox Jr.pdf
Appeal of Cox et al Objectors.pdf
Added to Index
Last Updated

Objection of Tonya Mosley

Objectors Tonya Mosley
Signers Tonya Mosley
Attorneys
Summary
  1. Attorneys' fees are excessive.
  2. Requirements to appear at the Fairness Hearing are unduly burdensome.
Attachments Objection of Tonya Mosley.pdf
Added to Index
Last Updated

Objection of William Cleusman, Myriah Cain

Objectors William Cleusman
Myriah Cain
Signers W. Allen McDonald
Attorneys W. Allen McDonald
Summary
  1. Relief available to class members in different states is unfairly divergent.
  2. Approving a nation-wide class violates principles of federalism.
  3. Class counsel did not properly make documents related to fee motion available for review by class members.
  4. Claim process is unnecessarily vague.
  5. Requirements to appear at the Fairness Hearing are unduly burdensome.
  6. Class members are unfairly punished for failing to keep receipts.
Attachments Objection of William Cleusman and Myriah Cain.pdf
Appeal of Objectors Cluesman and Cain.pdf
Appeal of Objectors Cluesman and Cain (Part 2).pdf
Added to Index
Last Updated

Objection of Patrick Giratos, John Muhs, John C. Kress

Objectors Patrick Giratos
John Muhs
John C. Kress
Signers Jonathan E. Fortman
John C. Kress
Attorneys Jonathan E. Fortman
John C. Kress
J. Scott Kessinger
Summary
  1. Requirements to appear at the Fairness Hearing are unduly burdensome.
  2. Class counsel did not properly make documents related to fee motion available for review by class members.
  3. Possible deposition of objectors is unfair.
  4. Relief available to the class is illusory.
  5. Unclaimed funds improperly revert to the Defendant.
  6. Attorneys' fees are excessive.
  7. "Clear sailing" provisions are improper.
Attachments Objections of Patrick Garitos et al.pdf
Appeal of Cox et al Objectors.pdf
Added to Index
Last Updated