Chambers v. Whirlpool Corporation

Plaintiffs allege that Defendants retailed dishwashers under the Whirlpool, KitchenAid, and Kenmore brand names with a known defect in the electronic controls.  This defect caused the dishwasher's electronic control boards to "spontaneously overheat, emit smoke, fumes and sparks and erupt in flames" (see Complaint, page 4). 

1. Final Approval granted.
   • The Court noted that, "[m]ost of the objections were filed by 'serial' objectors who are well-known for routinely filing meritless objections to class action settlements for the improper purpose of extracting a fee rather than to benefit the Class.  These serial objectors include:  (1) Timothy R. Hanigan and Christopher Bandas...(2) Steve A. Miller, John C. Kress, and Jonathan E. Fortman...(3) Patrick S. Sweeney...(4) Jan L. Miorelli...(5) Christopher T. Cain...(6) W. Allen McDonald...(7) Steven Helfand...and (8) Joseph Darrell Palmer (see Final Approval Order at 12:16-13:6).
2. All serial objectors (with the exception of the withdrawn Bowes Objection and the stricken Whaley/Hightower Objection) appealed the Final Approval.
3. The appeals are ongoing.

1. $100,000 side payment to class representative is improper and creates a conflict of interest.
   • Side payment leads to improper class representation.
2. Class counsel billing records are improperly subject to protective order.

NOTE:  These objections were voluntarily withdrawn, finding that she did not have adequate documentation to establish her ability to receive compensation under the settlement.

1. Settlement structure creates improper intra-class conflict.
2. Settlement amount represents a fraction of the actual damages.
3. "Cash rebates" should be considered "coupons" under the Class Action Fairness Act.
   • Settlement valuation is thus inflated.
4. Class representative award is excessive.
5. Attorneys' fees are excessive.

1. Claims administration process lacks adequate oversight.
2. Claims administration process lacks definitive timeframes.
3. Attorneys' fees are divorced from actual recovery by the class.
4. Attorneys' fees are not supported by the record available on PACER.
5. Payments to the class representative are improper.
6. Potential cy pres provisions are not adequately disclosed.
7. Attorneys' fees are excessive.

The Court struck this objection at the Final Approval, finding that "Sweeney and McDonald had failed to comply with discovery obligations imposed on them as objectors and str[iking] their objections on the record, reasoning that objectors cannot refuse to participate in discovery and still have their objections considered by the court" (see Order Certifying McDonald and Sweeney Appeals as Frivolous, at 2:4-7).  Indeed, part of Mr. Sweeney's response involved citing this website as his only available concrete record of his objections (see Email Correspondence, page 3).

Objector Sweeney appealed the Final Approval, despite the District Court certifying that his appeal was frivolous.

1. Settlement is illusory, since the rebate provisions should be considered coupons.
2. Settlement does not compensate class members for collateral damages from a qualifying event.
3. Class representative suffers from conflict of interest problems.
4. Non-class members can be impermissibly compensated.
5. Attorneys' fees are excessive and should be calculated based on the actual recovery by the class.

Attorney Palmer was suspended by the California bar from practicing law, effective June 17, 2016.  Attorney Palmer notified the Court of this suspension in a notice that was dated June 17, but was mailed June 28 and not received until July 1.  Attorney Palmer was barred from making any appearances in this case and the objections of his clients were stricken.

1. Attorneys' fees are excessive and improperly calculated.
2. Coupon provisions lead to overvaluation of the settlement.
3. Non-class members unfairly benefit from the settlement.
4. Class representative incentive awards and side payments are excessive and lead to inadequate class representation.
5. The class administrator distributed inaccurate information to class members regarding deadlines.

The Court struck this objection at the Final Approval, finding that "Sweeney and McDonald had failed to comply with discovery obligations imposed on them as objectors and str[iking] their objections on the record, reasoning that objectors cannot refuse to participate in discovery and still have their objections considered by the court" (see Order Certifying McDonald and Sweeney Appeals as Frivolous, at 2:4-7).

Objector McDonald appealed both the Order Striking his Objection and the Final Approval Order.

1. Conflicts of interest exist between the named plaintiffs (who receive a large payment) and the class members (who receive nothing.)
2. Settlement is structured as a marketing ploy for Defendants, since most relief is simply a coupon for a future purchase.
3. Attorneys' fees are excessive and divorced from the actual recovery by the class.

The District Court compelled discovery from Objector Kress, including deposition of two of her lawyers, John C. Kress and Jonathan E. Fortman.  In their depositions, both attorneys disclosed that they have been paid to drop their appeals numerous times, without corresponding benefits to the Class. (see John C. Kress Transcript at 22:13-26:19, Fortman Transcript at 30:8-37:5).

Objector Kress voluntarily withdrew her objection and appeal on November 30, 2016.

1. Settlement should be considered a "coupon settlement" under the Class Action Fairness Act.
2. Class representative award is excessive and leads to inadequate representation.
3. Attorneys' fees are excessive.