In re: Lawnmower Engine Horsepower Marketing and Sales Practices Litigation

Case # 08-md-01999
Case Name In re: Lawnmower Engine Horsepower Marketing and Sales Practices Litigation
Jurisdiction US District Court for E.D. WI
Summary

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.

Final Approval Date 08/16/2010
Result
  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.
Dismissal of Last Appeal 02/16/2011
Attachments Docket Report.pdf
First Amended Class Action Complaint.pdf
Preliminary Approval Order.pdf
Final Approval Order (Group of Six).pdf
Final Approval Order (Honda).pdf
Final Approval Order (Kawasaki).pdf
Final Approval Order (Kohler).pdf
Final Approval Order (MTD).pdf
Order Denying Motion for Appeal Bond.pdf
Added to Index
Last Updated

Objection of Rosalie Bogardts, Paul Palmer, Irving S. Bergin, Cory A. Buye, Thomas Basie

Objectors Rosalie Bogardts
Paul Palmer
Irving S. Bergin
Cory A. Buye
Thomas Basie
Signers Patrick Sweeney
Attorneys Patrick Sweeney
Joseph Darrell Palmer
Kenneth E. Nelson
Edward F. Siegel
Summary
  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.
Attachments Objection of Rosalie Borgardts et al.pdf
Siegel Appearance for Bogarts et al Objectors.pdf
Objection of Jill Cannata.pdf
Objection of Robert Falkner.pdf
Appeal of Bogardts et al Objectors.pdf
Motion for Appeal Bond (Bogardts).pdf
Brief in Support of Motion for Appeal Bond (Bogardts).pdf
Dismissal of Bogardts et al Appeal.pdf
Added to Index
Last Updated

Objection of Carl Olson, Jr

Objectors Carl Olson, Jr
Signers Carl Olson, Jr
John J. Pentz
Attorneys John J. Pentz
Summary
  1. Attorneys' fees are excessive in relation to the recovery by the class.
  2. Fee motion was not adequately disclosed to the class.
Attachments Objection of Carl Olson Jr.pdf
Appeal of Objector Olson.pdf
Motion for Appeal Bond (Olson).pdf
Brief in Support of Motion for Appeal Bond (Olson).pdf
Olson Response to Motion for Appeal Bond.pdf
Dismissal of Olson Appeal.pdf
Added to Index
Last Updated

Objection of Jeannine Miller

Objectors Jeannine Miller
Signers Steve A. Miller
Attorneys Steve A. Miller
Summary
  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.
Attachments Objection of Jeannine Miller.pdf
Appeal of Objector Miller.pdf
Motion for Appeal Bond (Miller).pdf
Brief in Support of Motion for Appeal Bond (Remaining Objector-Appellants).pdf
Miller Response to Motion for Appeal Bond.pdf
Dismissal of Miller Appeal.pdf
Added to Index
Last Updated

Objection of Thomas L. Cox Jr., Karen Chandler

Objectors Thomas L. Cox Jr.
Karen Chandler
Signers Thomas L. Cox Jr.
Attorneys Joshua B. Kons
Summary
  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.
Attachments Objection of Thomas L. Cox.pdf
Appeal of Objector Cox.pdf
Motion for Appeal Bond (Cox).pdf
Dismissal of Cox Appeal.pdf
Added to Index
Last Updated

Objection of David Borgmeyer, Jarvis Gutridge, Earl Hortiz

Objectors David Borgmeyer
Jarvis Gutridge
Earl Hortiz
Signers John C. Kress
Attorneys John C. Kress
Jonathan E. Fortman
J. Scott Kessinger
Summary
  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.
Attachments Objection of David Borgmeyer et al.pdf
Appeal of Borgmeyer et al Objectors.pdf
Motion for Appeal Bond (Borgmeyer et al).pdf
Brief in Support of Motion for Appeal Bond (Remaining Objector-Appellants).pdf
Dismissal of Borgmeyer et al Appeal.pdf
Added to Index
Last Updated

Objection of Clyde Farrel Padgett

Objectors Clyde Farrel Padgett
Signers Clyde Farrel Padgett
Attorneys
Summary
  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.
Attachments Objection of Clyde Farrel Padgett.pdf
Appeal of Objector Padgett.pdf
Motion for Appeal Bond (Padgett).pdf
Brief in Support of Motion for Appeal Bond (Remaining Objector-Appellants).pdf
Dismissal of Padgett Appeal.pdf
Added to Index
Last Updated

Objection of David C. Marlow

Objectors David C. Marlow
Signers James H. Price
Attorneys James H. Price
Summary
  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.
Attachments Objection of David Marlow.pdf
Appeal of Objector Marlow.pdf
Dismissal of Marlow Appeal.pdf
Added to Index
Last Updated

Objection of Scott Kimball III

Objectors Scott Kimball III
Signers Mark A. Lindow
Attorneys Mark A. Lindow
Summary
  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.
Attachments Objection of Scott Kimball III.pdf
Appeal of Objector Kimball.pdf
Dismissal of Kimball Appeal.pdf
Added to Index
Last Updated

Objection of Douglas Hilbert, Kelly Marie Spann, Kent Stephens

Objectors Douglas Hilbert
Kelly Marie Spann
Kent Stephens
Signers Jonathan E. Fortman
Attorneys Jonathan E. Fortman
John C. Kress
J. Scott Kessinger
Summary
  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.
Attachments Objection of Douglas Hilbert et al.pdf
Appeal of Borgmeyer et al Objectors.pdf
Motion for Appeal Bond (Borgmeyer et al).pdf
Brief in Support of Motion for Appeal Bond (Remaining Objector-Appellants).pdf
Dismissal of Borgmeyer et al Appeal.pdf
Added to Index
Last Updated

Objection of Mark Schulte, Munir Abu-Nader

Objectors Mark Schulte
Munir Abu-Nader
Signers J. Scott Kessinger
Attorneys J. Scott Kessinger
Jonathan E. Fortman
John C. Kress
Summary
  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.
Attachments Objection of Mark Schulte and Munir Abu-Nader.pdf
Appeal of Borgmeyer et al Objectors.pdf
Motion for Appeal Bond (Borgmeyer et al).pdf
Brief in Support of Motion for Appeal Bond (Remaining Objector-Appellants).pdf
Dismissal of Borgmeyer et al Appeal.pdf
Added to Index
Last Updated