Meta v. Target

Defendant retails "flushable wipes" under the in-store brand "Up and Up."  However, Plaintiffs allege, the wipes are not safe to flush down consumers' toilets and can clog sewage and septic systems.  Despite knowing that the product did not perform as advertised, Defendants continued to market the wipes as safe for flushing.

1. Final Approval granted.
2. The Court found that "Objector Neumann is a 'professional' or 'serial' objector to class action settlements who has repeatedly objected to class settlements in order to 'hold up valuable settlements for class members by filing frivolous appeals.'" (See Settlement Order and Final Judgment at 14, citing Gemelas v. Dannon)
3. Objectors Ference and Neumann appealed the Final Approval.
4. Class Counsel motioned for an appeal bond of $80,000 ($40,000 from both Ference and Neumann), including appellate and administrative costs.
5. The appeal bond was granted by the Court, noting "there is evidence that both of the appellants are serial objectors.  When an appeal is taken by a serial objector without substantial grounds to challenge the validity of the underlying settlement, public policy weighs in favor of imposing a bond...the delay in executing the settlement that will be caused by the appeal will significantly impede the Plaintiff and other class member's relief (emphasis added)" (see Order Granting Motion for Appeal Bond, pg 2)
6. Objector Neumann motioned to reconsider, which was denied by the Court.
7. Objector-Appellant Ference voluntarily dismissed her appeal on 10/25/2018.
8. Class Counsel motioned to modify the appeal bond to require Objector-Appellant Neumann to post the entire $80,000 bond.  The motion was opposed by Objector-Appellant Neumann but was granted by the Court.
9. As of 11/28/2018, Objector-Appellant Neumann has not posted the appeal bond but is pursuing his appeal.

1. Settlement should be considered a coupon settlement.
2. Attorneys' fees are excessive and improperly calculated.
3. Class representative incentive award is excessive.

1. Class definition excludes certain class members.
2. Class definition is poorly explained in the class notice.
3. Attorneys' fees should be based on actual recovery by the class.
4. Settlement is overvalued.
5. Class members have not been given sufficient time to review class counsel's fee request.
6. Settlement website is designed to depress the number of objections.
7. Class representative incentive award is excessive.