Rikos v. Proctor & Gamble Company

Case # 11-cv-00226
Case Name Rikos v. Proctor & Gamble Company
Jurisdiction US District Court for S.D. OH
Summary

Defendants manufacture an over-the-counter digestive care product under the trade name "Align."  Defendants prominently market the health benefits of the product.  Plaintiffs allege that Defendants do not have any clinical proof of the benefits of their product.  As a result of these deceptive marketing practices, consumers were deceived into buying a product with no proven benefit.

Final Approval Date 04/30/2018
Result
  1. Final Approval granted.
  2. All objections were overruled.
  3. The Court found that both Sweeney objectors were "frequent objectors to class action settlements" (Final Approval Order, pg 27-28) and noted Objector Cain was a "serial objector who raises meritless arguments" (Final Approval Order, pg. 29)
  4. Objectors Gallagher, Cain, Patrick Sweeney, and Pamela Sweeney appealed the Final Approval.
  5. Both Sweeney appeals were voluntarily dismissed on 07/22/2018.
  6. Class Counsel and Defendants jointly motioned for an appeal bond of $561,489.44 from Objector-Appellants Gallagher and Cain.
  7. The Gallagher and Cain appeals were dismissed prior to the resolution of the appeal bond issue.
Dismissal of Last Appeal 10/15/2018
Attachments Docket Report.pdf
Third Amended Class Action Complaint.pdf
Preliminary Approval Order.pdf
Plaintiffs' Response to Objections.pdf
Declaration in Support of Plaintiffs' Response to Objections.pdf
Defendant's Response to Objections.pdf
Final Approval Order.pdf
Joint Motion for Appeal Bond.pdf
Added to Index
Last Updated

Objection of Arianna Gallagher

Objectors Arianna Gallagher
Signers Arianna Gallagher
Simina Vourlis
Attorneys Simina Vourlis
Summary
  1. Recovery by individual class members is unfairly capped.
  2. Distributions to Digestive Health Improvement Contributions should conform to cy pres regulations.
  3. Settlement does not disclose how undeliverable/uncashed funds will be handled.
  4. Attorneys' fees should be based on actual recovery by the class.
  5. Settlement may show signs of collusion between plaintiffs and defendants.
Attachments Objection of Arianna Gallagher.pdf
Vourlis Appearance for Objector Gallagher.pdf
Appeal of Objector Gallagher.pdf
Gallagher Response to Motion for Appeal Bond.pdf
Dismissal of Gallagher Appeal.pdf
Gallagher Appeal Docket.pdf
Added to Index
Last Updated

Objection of Christopher T. Cain

Objectors Christopher T. Cain
Signers Christopher T. Cain
Attorneys W. Allen McDonald
Summary
  1. Cy pres provisions are improper.
  2. Clear sailing provisions are improper.

NOTE:  Attorney McDonald filed his appearance on the appeal.

Attachments Objection of Christopher T. Cain.pdf
Appeal of Objector Cain.pdf
McDonald Appearance for Objector-Appellant Cain.pdf
Dismissal of Cain Appeal.pdf
Cain Appeal Docket.pdf
Added to Index
Last Updated

Objection of Patrick Sweeney

Objectors Patrick Sweeney
Signers Patrick Sweeney
Attorneys
Summary
  1. Attorneys' fees are excessive.
Attachments Objection of Patrick Sweeney.pdf
Appeal of Objector Patrick Sweeney.pdf
Dismissal of Patrick Sweeney Appeal.pdf
Patrick Sweeney Appeal Docket.pdf
Added to Index
Last Updated

Objection of Pamela Sweeney

Objectors Pamela Sweeney
Signers Pamela Sweeney
Attorneys
Summary
  1. Attorneys' fees are excessive.
Attachments Objection of Pamela Sweeney.pdf
Appeal of Objector Pamela Sweeney.pdf
Dismissal of Pamela Sweeney Appeal.pdf
Pamela Sweeney Appeal Docket.pdf
Added to Index
Last Updated

Objection of Adam Brunet

Objectors Adam Brunet
Signers Adam Brunet
Attorneys
Summary
  1. Attorneys' fees are excessive.
  2. Fee request is improperly due after the objection deadline, which denies class members due process.
Attachments Objection of Adam Brunet.pdf
Added to Index
Last Updated