Meta v. Target

Case # 14-cv-00832
Case Name Meta v. Target
Jurisdiction US District Court for N.D. OH
Summary

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.

Final Approval Date 08/07/2018
Result
  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.
Dismissal of Last Appeal ongoing
Attachments Docket Report.pdf
Amended Class Action Complaint.pdf
Preliminary Approval Order.pdf
Motion for Final Approval and Response to Objections.pdf
Settlement Order and Final Judgment.pdf
Motion for Appeal Bond.pdf
Reply in Support of Motion for Appeal Bond.pdf
Order Granting Motion for Appeal Bond.pdf
Order Denying Motion to Reconsider.pdf
Motion to Modify Appeal Bond.pdf
Order Granting Motion to Modify Appeal Bond.pdf
Added to Index
Last Updated

Objection of Sheila Ference

Objectors Sheila Ference
Signers Simina Vourlis
Attorneys Simina Vourlis
Summary
  1. Settlement should be considered a coupon settlement.
  2. Attorneys' fees are excessive and improperly calculated.
  3. Class representative incentive award is excessive.
Attachments Objection of Sheila Ference.pdf
Appeal of Objector Ference.pdf
Vourlis Appearance for Objector-Appellant Ference.pdf
Ference Opposition to Motion for Appeal Bond.pdf
Dismissal of Ference Appeal.pdf
Ference Appeal Docket.pdf
Added to Index
Last Updated

Objection of Erich B. Neumann

Objectors Erich B. Neumann
Signers Erich B. Neumann
Attorneys
Summary
  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.
Attachments Objection of Erich Neumann.pdf
Neumann's Reply to Response to Objections.pdf
Appeal of Objector Neumann.pdf
Neumann Opposition to Motion for Appeal Bond.pdf
Neumann Motion to Reconsider Order Granting Appeal Bond.pdf
Neumann Opposition to Motion to Modify Appeal Bond.pdf
Neumann Appeal Docket.pdf
Added to Index
Last Updated