Goldemberg v. Johnson & Johnson Consumer Companies

Case # 13-cv-03073
Case Name Goldemberg v. Johnson & Johnson Consumer Companies
Jurisdiction US District Court for S.D. NY
Summary

Defendant manufactures numerous personal care products under the trade name "Aveeno Active Naturals."  Plaintiffs allege that this labeling is misleading, since the products contain artificial ingredients.

Final Approval Date 11/01/2017
Result
  1. Final Approval granted.
  2. All objections were overruled.
  3. The Court also wrote "that the Objectors are both serial professional objectors to class settlements, raising serious concerns as to the legitimacy of both their arguments and their motions." (see Opinion and Judgment at 13, emphasis added).
  4. Objectors Hammack and Sweeney appealed the Final Approval.
  5. Class counsel motioned for an appeal bond of $45,000 from both Objectors.
  6. Both the Hammack and Sweeney appeals were voluntarily dismissed prior to the resolution of the bond issue.
Dismissal of Last Appeal 01/23/2018
Attachments Docket Report.pdf
Second Amended Class Action Complaint.pdf
Amended Preliminary Approval Order.pdf
Plaintiffs' Response to Objections.pdf
Order and Judgment.pdf
Motion for Appeal Bond.pdf
Added to Index
Last Updated

Objection of Ashley Hammack

Objectors Ashley Hammack
Signers Ashley Hammack
Stephen D. Field
Attorneys Stephen D. Field
Summary
  1. Notice plan is unavailable for class members to review.
  2. Notice plan was not as effective as possible.
  3. Cy pres provisions are improper.
  4. Class members do not have sufficient opportunity to review the attorneys' fee motion.
  5. Attorneys' fees are excessive.
  6. Objection requirements are overly burdensome.
Attachments Objection of Ashley Hammack.pdf
Field Appearance for Objector Hammack.pdf
Appeal of Objector Hammack.pdf
Dismissal of Sweeney and Hammack Appeals.pdf
Sweeney and Hammack Joint 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.

NOTE:  This objection makes reference to "other TCPA cases", which Class Counsel contends is evidence of the objection's copy and paste nature. (see Objection at 3).

Attachments Objection of Pamela Sweeney.pdf
Appeal of Objector Sweeney.pdf
Sweeney Motion for Extension to Pay Filing Fee.pdf
Dismissal of Sweeney and Hammack Appeals.pdf
Sweeney and Hammack Joint Appeal Docket.pdf
Added to Index
Last Updated