In re Enfamil LIPIL Marketing and Sales Practices Litigation

Case # 11- md-02222
Case Name In re Enfamil LIPIL Marketing and Sales Practices Litigation
Jurisdiction US District Court for S.D. FL
Summary

Defendant, Mead Johnson & Company, retails infant formula under the brand name Enfamil.  This formula contains LIPIL, which is a blend of two nutrients found in breast milk that promote brain and eye development.  Defendants falsely claimed that their product was the only one on the market that contained these nutrients, despite the fact that other brands, including much cheaper private label brands, also contained equal or greater amounts of these nutrients.  As a result of these false representations, consumers paid a premium for the Defendant's product beyond what they normally would have paid.

Final Approval Date 11/14/2011
Result
  1. Final Approval granted.
  2. Objectors Huter (through Attorney Miller) and Pack (through Attorneys Price and McDonald) appealed the Final Approval.
  3. Objector Huter voluntarily dismissed her appeal.
  4. Class Counsel sought a Motion to Compel Deposition Answers (denied) and an Appeal Bond (granted, though reduced) against Objector Pack.
  5. The Eleventh Circuit affirmed the decision of the District Court, overruling the objections of Objector Pack.
Dismissal of Last Appeal 08/21/2012
Attachments Docket Report.pdf
Amended Class Action Complaint.pdf
Preliminary Approval Order.pdf
Fairness Hearing Transcript.pdf
Final Approval Order.pdf
Motion for Appeal Bond.pdf
Defendant's Memorandum in Support of Appeal Bond.pdf
Order Granting in Part Motion for Appeal Bond.pdf
Appellate Decision Affirming District Court Ruling.pdf
Appeal Docket.pdf
Added to Index
Last Updated

Objection of Margaret Huter

Objectors Margaret Huter
Signers Margaret Huter
Attorneys Steve A. Miller
Summary
  1. Settlement compensates class members equally, regardless of the number of relevant products they purchased.
  2. Attorneys' fees are excessive.
  3. Class representative incentive awards are excessive and unwarranted.
Attachments Objection of Margaret Huter.pdf
Miller Appearance for Objector Huter.pdf
Appeal of Objector Huter.pdf
Huter Response to Motion for Appeal Bond.pdf
Dismissal of Huter Appeal.pdf
Added to Index
Last Updated

Objection of Sandra M. Pack

Objectors Sandra M. Pack
Signers James H. Price
Attorneys James H. Price
W. Allen McDonald
Summary
  1. Total value of the settlement is inadequate.
    • Parties have not met their burden to prove the settlement is adequate.
  2. Allocation is unfair.
    • Class members opting for cash will receive less than half of the value of those opting for formula.
    • Cash class members may have their portion of the fund reduced by proration, while formula class members will not.
  3. Cy pres distribution may direct funds away from class members who have not been fully compensated.
  4. Attorneys' fees are excessive and improperly calculated.
  5. Attorneys' fee motion was not properly made available to class members for review.

Following her appeal, class counsel attempted to depose Objector Pack regarding her appeal and the posting of an appeal bond.  Objector Pack and her attorney refused to answer any questions regarding whether she was attempting to extort money from the settlement (see Deposition Transcript).  The Email Regarding Payment to Objector Pack indicates that her attorneys sought a payment of $150,000 in exchange for dropping her appeal.  The Court denied Class Counsel's motion to compel answers, since they had not sought leave from the Court for conducting this discovery.

Class counsel motioned for an appeal bond of $61,400 ($56,400 supersedas and $5,000 in costs).  The District Court found that a bond was warranted, noting that "The Court finds little merit to Pack's appeal.  The Court already considered and overruled Pack's objections to the settlement agreement.  The Court is also troubled that Pack's attorney, W. Allen McDonald, offered to withdraw her appeal in exchange for a payment of $150,000 (citation omitted).  This settlement offer suggests that Pack's objections ARE TIED TO HER ABILITY TO GARNER WINDFALL FOR HERSELF RATHER THAN ENSURING AN ADEQUATE SETTLEMENT FOR THE CLASS...Finally, the Court agrees with the parties that THE REPRESENTATION OF THREE PREVIOUS OBJECTORS BY THE LACY, PRICE & WAGNER FIRM WEIGHS IN FAVOR OF REQUIRING AN APPEAL BOND [emphasis added]" (See Order Granting in Part Motion for Appeal Bond, page 8-9).  However, the Court reduced the appeal bond to $1,000, which Objector Pack posted.

Attachments Objection of Sandra M. Pack.pdf
Appeal of Objector Pack.pdf
Pack Response to Motion for Appeal Bond.pdf
Pack Deposition Transcript.pdf
Motion to Compel Deposition Answers from Objector Pack.pdf
Email Regarding Payment to Objector Pack.pdf
Pack Response to Motion to Compel Deposition Answers.pdf
DiMaggio Declaration in Support of Pack Response to Motion to Compel Deposition Answers.pdf
McDonald Declaration in Support of Pack Response to Motion to Compel Deposition Answers.pdf
Reply to Pack Response to Motion to Compel Deposition Answers.pdf
Supplemental McDonald Declaration in Support of Pack Response to Motion to Compel Deposition Answers.pdf
Denial of Motion to Compel Deposition Answers from Objector Pack.pdf
Reply to Pack Response to Motion for Appeal Bond.pdf
Added to Index
Last Updated