In re Lumber Liquidators Chinese-Manufactured Flooring Litigation

Case # 16-md-02743
Case Name In re Lumber Liquidators Chinese-Manufactured Flooring Litigation
Jurisdiction US District Court for E.D. VA

Defendant retails laminate flooring products under the private label "Dream Home."  This flooring was marketed as being suitable for "general household use."  However, plaintiffs allege that this flooring did not meet industry standards for this designation and was subject to substantial degradation in a general household setting.

Final Approval Date 10/09/2018
  1. Final Approval granted.
  2. All objections were overruled.
  3. The Court noted that "[f]inding that efficient resolution of these matters and the provision of relief to the class after more than three years of litigation and negotiation is of primary concern, the Court will order any objecting class member who appeals this Order to file simultaneously with their notice of appeal a motion stating their position as to what bond amount, if any, should be set." (see Final Approval Order, page 18, emphasis added)
  4. Objectors Cantu-Guerrero appealed the Final Approval.
  5. Objector Cantu-Guerrero argued that no appeal bond was necessary and, alternatively, an appeal bond should be capped at $5,000.
  6. Class counsel argued for an appeal bond of $50,000.
  7. The Court granted an appeal bond of $7,500, which was posted by Objector-Appellant Cantu-Guerrero.
  8. Objector Johnston also appealed the Final Approval.
  9. The appeals process is ongoing.
Dismissal of Last Appeal ongoing
Attachments Docket Report.pdf
Representative Class Action Complaint.pdf
Preliminary Approval Order.pdf
Plaintiffs' Response to Objections.pdf
Final Approval Order.pdf
Order Granting Appeal Bond.pdf
Added to Index
Last Updated

Objection of Diana Cantu-Guerrero

Objectors Diana Cantu-Guerrero
Signers Diana Cantu-Guerrero
Robert W. Clore
Attorneys Robert W. Clore
Christopher A. Bandas
Eric Stewart
  1. Vouchers may become valueless if Defendant goes out of business.
  2. Quick-pay provisions are improper.
  3. Cy pres provisions are improper.  Residual funds should be directed to the class.
  4. Attorneys' fees need a lodestar cross-check.
  5. Vouchers should not be considered cash for calculating attorneys' fees.

As part of the deposition process, class counsel received Objector Cantu-Guerrero's retainer agreement.  The retainer references this website, when noting that much information about objectors and the Bandas Law Firm comes from "publicly available information" (see Bandas Retainer Agreement at 5.4, attached below).  During her deposition, Objector Cantu-Guerrero noted that she had not reviewed this website (see Cantu-Guerrero Deposition Transcript at 65:14-66:9, attached below).

NOTE:  Attorney Bandas filed his appearance on the appeal.

Attachments Objection of Diana Cantu-Guerrero.pdf
Clore Motion for Pro Hac Vice.pdf
Stewart Motion for Pro Hac Vice.pdf
Cantu-Guerrero Deposition Transcript.pdf
Bandas Retainer Agreement.pdf
Appeal of Objector Cantu-Guerrero.pdf
Bandas Appearance for Objector-Appellant Cantu-Guerrero.pdf
Objector-Appellant Cantu-Guerrero Motion to Deny Appeal Bond.pdf
Cantu-Guerrero Memorandum in Support of Motion to Deny Appeal Bond.pdf
Cantu-Guerrero Reply in Support of Motion to Deny.pdf
Added to Index
Last Updated

Objection of Brice Johnston

Objectors Brice Johnston
Signers Brice Johnston
Attorneys N. Albert Bacharach, Jr.
  1. Attorneys' fees are excessive and a disproportionate part of the settlement.
  2. Settlement is overvalued.

NOTE:  Attorney Bacharach filed his appearance on the appeal.

Attachments Objection of Brice Johnston.pdf
Appeal of Objector Johnston.pdf
Bacharach Appearance for Objector-Appellant Johnston.pdf
Johnston Appeal Docket.pdf
Added to Index
Last Updated

Objection of Jill Piazza

Objectors Jill Piazza
Signers Jill Piazza
  1. Common issues do not predominate.
  2. Subclasses are not adequately compensated.
  3. Attorneys' fees are excessive.
Attachments Objection of Jill Piazza.pdf
Added to Index
Last Updated