Gallucci v. Boiron

Case # 11-cv-02039
Case Name Gallucci v. Boiron
Jurisdiction US District Court for S.D. CA
Summary

Defendant retails a number of homeopathic remedies.  Plaintiffs allege that the supposed active ingredients have been diluted so significantly as to not be present and that Defendant is, in fact, retailing placebos.

Final Approval Date 10/31/2012
Result
  1. Final Approval granted.
  2. All serial objectors appealed the Final Approval.
  3. Class counsel motioned for an appeal bond of $235,500.66.
    • $3,660 in printing, filing, and service costs
    • $12,000 in administrative costs
    • $203,650 in attorneys' fees
    • $16,190.66 in post-judgment interest
  4. The Court granted an appeal bond of $5,000, to be paid collectively.
  5. Both the Johnson/Carapia and Elizondo appeals were dismissed for failure to file an opening brief.
  6. The Ninth Circuit later affirmed the District Court's decision, over the appeal of a separate group of objectors.
Dismissal of Last Appeal 03/24/2015
Attachments Docket Report.pdf
First Amended Complaint.pdf
Preliminary Approval Order.pdf
Joint Response to Objections.pdf
Final Judgment.pdf
Joint Motion for Appeal Bond.pdf
Order Granting in Part Motion for Appeal Bond.pdf
Ninth Circuit Decision.pdf
Added to Index
Last Updated

Objection of David Johnson, Maria Carapia

Objectors David Johnson
Maria Carapia
Signers Joseph Darrell Palmer
Attorneys Joseph Darrell Palmer
Summary
  1. Insufficient information exists to evaluate the attorneys' fee request.
  2. Attorneys' fee request must be evaluated under California law.
  3. Attorneys' fees are excessive.
  4. Injunctive relief may prove illusory.
  5. Objection requirements are unduly burdensome.
Attachments Objection of David Johnson and Maria Carapia.pdf
Appeal of Johnson and Carapia Objectors.pdf
Johnson and Carapia Opposition to Motion for Appeal Bond.pdf
Johnson and Carapia Motion for Extension.pdf
Dismissal of Johnson and Carapia Appeal.pdf
Johnson and Carapia Appeal Docket.pdf
Added to Index
Last Updated

Objection of Israel Elizondo

Objectors Israel Elizondo
Signers Israel Elizondo
Attorneys Christopher A. Bandas
Summary
  1. Attorneys' fees should not be paid out of the settlement fund.
  2. Potential pro rata reductions in recovery are unfair.

NOTE:  Attorney Bandas filed his appearance on the appeal.

Attachments Objection of Israel Elizondo.pdf
Appeal of Objector Elizondo.pdf
Bandas Appearance for Objector-Appellant Elizondo.pdf
Elizondo Opposition to Motion for Appeal Bond.pdf
Dismissal of Elizondo Appeal.pdf
Elizondo Appeal Docket.pdf
Added to Index
Last Updated