In re Blue Buffalo Marketing and Sales Practices Litigation

Case # 14-md-02562
Case Name In re Blue Buffalo Marketing and Sales Practices Litigation
Jurisdiction US District Court for E.D. MO
Summary

Defendants retail a line of pet foods under the "Blue Buffalo" brand.  Defendant alleges that these products are superior to competitors' products for numerous reasons, including being "grain free".  However, Plainitffs allege that this labelling is misleading as to the true contents of the product.

Final Approval Date 06/16/2016
Result
  1. Final Approval granted.
  2. All objections were overruled.
  3. Numerous objectors appealed the Final Approval.
  4. Plaintiffs motioned for an appeal bond of $150,309.00, including $25,000 in direct costs.
  5. The Court granted an appeal bond of $25,000 ($5,000 from each objector-appellant), noting that "[f]our of the five Objectors appear to be professional or serial objectors, which is a strong indicator that the appeals were brought in bad faith."  (see Order Granting Appeal Bond, page 6)
  6. All objector-appellants posted the appeal bond except for Objector-Appellant Sweeney, whose appeal was dismissed for failure to prosecute.
  7. The Eighth Circuit affirmed the District Court's decision.
  8. Objector-Appellant Sibley petitioned for an en banc rehearing, which was denied.
Dismissal of Last Appeal 07/05/2017
Attachments Docket Report.pdf
First Amended Consolidated Class Action Complaint.pdf
Preliminary Approval Order.pdf
Plaintiffs' Response to Objections.pdf
Fairness Hearing Transcript.pdf
Final Order and Judgment.pdf
Motion for Appeal Bond.pdf
Memorandum in Support of Motion for Appeal Bond.pdf
Reply in Support of Motion for Appeal Bond.pdf
Order Granting in Part Motion for Appeal Bond.pdf
Appellate Court Decision.pdf
Added to Index
Last Updated

Objection of Paul J. Lopez

Objectors Paul J. Lopez
Signers Paul J. Lopez
Timothy Belz
Attorneys Timothy Belz
J. Matthew Belz
Christopher A. Bandas
Robert W. Clore
Summary
  1. The majority of class members will receive a de minimis recovery.
  2. Attorneys' fees are excessive, since they failed to deduct settlement administration costs from the settlement amount.
  3. Attorneys' fees lack adequate documentation.
  4. Release is overbroad.
  5. Settlement presents intra-class conflicts between class members who have retained receipts and those who have not.

NOTE:  Attorneys Bandas and Clore filed their appearances on the appeal.

Attachments Objection of Paul Lopez.pdf
Lopez Deposition Transcript Excerpts.pdf
Appeal of Objector Lopez.pdf
Bandas Appearance for Objector-Appellant Lopez.pdf
Clore Appearance for Objector-Appellant Lopez.pdf
Lopez Opposition to Motion for Appeal Bond.pdf
Lopez Sur-reply in Opposition to Motion for Appeal Bond.pdf
Lopez Appeal Docket.pdf
Added to Index
Last Updated

Objection of Gary W. Sibley

Objectors Gary W. Sibley
Signers Gary W. Sibley
Attorneys
Summary
  1. Injunctive relief is valueless.
  2. Attorneys' fees are excessive.
  3. Notice place is deficient, in that it fails to include all of the requirements for objections specified in the Preliminary Approval Order.
Attachments Objection of Gary Sibley.pdf
Supplemental Objection of Gary Sibley.pdf
Sibley Deposition Transcript Excerpts.pdf
Appeal of Objector Sibley.pdf
Sibley Opposition to Motion for Appeal Bond.pdf
Order Denying Sibley Request for En Banc Rehearing.pdf
Sibley 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.
  2. Cap on class members' recovery is unfair.
  3. Notice plan is deficient since it omits objection requirements.
Attachments Objection of Pamela Sweeney.pdf
Sweeney Deposition Transcript Excerpts.pdf
Appeal of Objector Sweeney.pdf
Sweeney Opposition to Motion for Appeal Bond.pdf
Sweeney Motion for Extension of Time to Pay Appeal Bond.pdf
Opposition to Sweeney Motion for Extension.pdf
Order Granting in Part Sweeney Motion for Extension.pdf
Dismissal of Sweeney Appeal.pdf
Sweeney Appeal Docket.pdf
Added to Index
Last Updated

Objection of N. Albert Bacharach, Jr.

Objectors N. Albert Bacharach, Jr.
Signers N. Albert Bacharach, Jr.
Attorneys
Summary
  1. Settlement fund is insufficient.
  2. Lawsuit is derivative of a separate action filed by Purina.
  3. Notice does not disclose the total damages to the class.
  4. Attorneys' fees are excessive.
Attachments Objection of N. Albert Bacharach.pdf
Added to Index
Last Updated

Objection of Pamela McCoy

Objectors Pamela McCoy
Signers Pamela McCoy
Attorneys
Summary
  1. Caps on individual relief are too low.
  2. Attorneys' fees are excessive.
Attachments Objection of Pamela McCoy.pdf
Appeal of Objector McCoy.pdf
McCoy Appeal Docket.pdf
Added to Index
Last Updated