In re: Lawnmower Engine Horsepower Marketing and Sales Practices Litigation

Plaintiffs allege that Defendants routinely mislabeled the engine horsepower of lawn mowers that Defendants marketed and sold.  As a result of these misrepresentations, consumers were lead to pay more for the product than they would have otherwise.

1. Final Approval granted.
2. Numerous serial objectors appealed the Final Approval.
3. Class counsel motioned for each serial objector to pay an appeal bond of $80,000.
4. All appeal bond requests were denied by the District Court.
5. All appeals were voluntarily dismissed.

1. Claims administration lacks sufficient oversight and adequately defined time frames.
2. Attorneys' fees are excessive.
3. Claims process is unduly burdensome and designed to depress the number of claims.
4. Intra-class conflicts exist.
5. Cy pres provisions should be used to benefit absent class members.

1. Attorneys' fees are excessive in relation to the recovery by the class.
2. Fee motion was not adequately disclosed to the class.

1. Settlement does not adequately compensate class members who purchased riding mowers.
2. Attorneys' fees are excessive.
3. Procedures for disbursing residual funds are unclear.
4. Class representative awards are excessive.

1. Warranty extensions should be automatic for known class members.
2. Settlement valuation is suspect.
3. Settlement lacks necessary cy pres provisions.
4. Attorneys' fees are excessive.

1. Claims process is unduly burdensome.
2. Notice is insufficient.
   • Does not disclose the amount class members will receive.
   • Does not disclose the number of class members.
3. Class members who no longer own their lawn mower are improperly excluded.
4. Attorneys' fees are excessive and not tied to the recovery by the class.
5. Attorneys are paid prior to the class members.
6. Warranty provisions are valueless to many class members.
7. Injunctive relief is illusory.

1. Intraclass conflicts exist due to the usage of a common fund (i.e. some Defendants are paying claims for mowers they did not sell)
2. Class counsel colluded with the MTD Defendant to decrease their economic burden.
3. Claims process is unduly burdensome.
4. Attorneys' fees are excessive.

1. Class definition is overly vague.
2. Relief available to class members is insufficient.
3. Warranty provisions are of questionable value to class members.
4. Extended warranties should be extended to all class members.
5. Release by Honda is overbroad.
6. MTD should pay notice costs.

1. Intraclass conflict exists between class members who purchased mowers from different Defendants.
2. Class counsel colluded with the MTD Defendant to decrease their economic burden.
3. Class members cannot adequately evaluate the settlement.
4. Pro rata calculation information is overly vague.
5. Claims process is overly burdensome.
6. Cy pres provisions are improper.
7. Attorneys' fees are excessive.

1. Claims process is designed to prevent some class members (those who no longer own their lawn mower) from making claims.
2. Attorneys' fees are excessive.

1. Attorneys' fees are excessive.
2. Class members do not have adequate opportunity to comment on the fee request.
3. Recovery by class members is arbitrary.