US Justice Dept. Says Cookie Class Action Settlement Not So Sweet
The U.S. Justice Department filed a statement of interest in a case over Lenny & Larry's cookies as part of its more aggressive approach in reviewing class action settlements.
February 22, 2019 at 12:37 PM
6 minute read
The U.S. Justice Department is taking another bite into the terms of a class action settlement, insisting that a deal over Lenny & Larry's cookies would leave class members with nothing but crumbs.
The Department of Justice—which announced a year ago that it would challenge more class action settlements under the Class Action Fairness Act of 2005—filed a statement of interest Feb. 15 in a class action alleging that packaging mislabeled the protein content for all 11 flavors of Lenny & Larry's The Complete Cookie. The DOJ criticized the purported $3.5 million settlement, preliminarily approved Nov. 1, for giving $1.1 million in legal fees to plaintiffs attorneys, while class members received up to $50 in cash or $30 worth of cookies.
Another provision of the settlement left a bad taste in the government's mouth: Retailers such as General Nutrition Centers Inc. and The Vitamin Shoppe would receive potentially $3.15 million in free cookies should not enough class members make claims. That portion of the settlement, according to the DOJ's filing, was akin to a cy pres award.
“The proposed settlement is fatally lopsided,” wrote Kendrack Lewis, a trial attorney at the Consumer Protection Branch of the DOJ's civil division in Washington, D.C. “Indeed, it is difficult to imagine a less balanced settlement than one where most of the money goes to class counsel and administrative costs, while class members get far less than their counsel and the general public gets over $3 million in free cookies.”
Robert Wallan, of Pillsbury Winthrop Shaw Pittman's Los Angeles office, who is representing Lenny & Larry's, called the DOJ's filing “moot” because both sides already were re-crafting the settlement to address some of its concerns. He said an unusually high claims rate, and not the DOJ's involvement, prompted the changes.
“The claims rate ended up being very high on cash, but also very high on cookies, so the result is in order to get the cash amount to be approximately or in the range of what the settlement agreement provided for, the parties are working on essentially shifting cookies to cash,” he said.
Lead plaintiffs' attorney Edward Wallace of Wexler Wallace in Chicago did not respond to a request for comment. Nick Suciu of BMST Law Firm in Bloomfield Hills, Michigan, and Steve Wasserman of Wasserman Law Group in Tarzana, California, joined him on the case.
A final settlement hearing is set for March 19.
The DOJ's filing came one day after Attorney General Bill Barr's confirmation. Department of Justice spokeswoman Kelly Laco declined to comment.
Traditionally, the DOJ has rarely gotten involved in class action settlements but, last year, Associate Attorney General Rachel Brand suggested in a speech that the Justice Department would be more aggressive in reviewing their fairness of such deals. Soon afterward, government lawyers filed a statement of interest urging a federal judge in New Jersey to reject a settlement that would have given nearly $2 million in fees to plaintiffs' lawyers and vouchers to class members in a case alleging false pricing advertisements on the website Wines Til Sold Out. U.S. District Judge Renée Bumb of the District of New Jersey rejected the deal, but after the DOJ withdrew its objection.
Originally filed in 2017, the lawsuit against Lenny & Larry's, based in Panorama City, California, brought fraud claims on behalf of a nationwide class and subclasses in Illinois, Michigan and, later, Pennsylvania. Both sides reached a settlement after U.S. District Judge Robert Gettleman of the Northern District of Illinois dismissed a large chunk of the case in 2017, and plaintiffs ended up limiting their case to an Illinois subclass of consumers.
The settlement, however, was for a nationwide class. It provided $1.85 million in cash, of which plaintiffs' lawyers would get up to $1.2 million in fees and expenses.
After subtracting administrative costs and incentive awards to named plaintiffs, that left $350,000 in cash for class members. Class members could make claims for cash or cookies: up to $50 cash or $30 in free cookies, if they had proof of purchase, and $10 in cash or $15 in cookies if they did not.
The claims deadline was Jan. 29. Ted Frank, a class action critic who argued against a cy pres award last fall in a case against Google before the U.S. Supreme Court, filed an objection to the Lenny & Larry's deal. He said he was “encouraged” by the DOJ's filing, which raised many of the same concerns he had in his Jan. 28 filing.
According to the DOJ's filing, only 10 percent of the 90,566 claimants wanted cookies over cash, which meant class members would each end up getting less money while most of the cookies would end up as free giveaways to retailers.
“This cookie giveaway does not benefit class members at all; instead, it is effectively a promotional opportunity for Lenny & Larry's and their longstanding health food retailers to draw in consumers with free samples,” he wrote. “Rather than convey the bulk of its benefit to class members, the proposed settlement appears to be a marketing campaign to distribute defendant's cookies to the public.”
Further, the plaintiffs' fee request is “outlandish,” Lewis wrote, and should be somewhere between $228,000 and $463,000.
Wallan predicted that the fee request would change after the parties redraft the settlement. He also criticized the DOJ's “gross misconstruction of the term of cy pres,” which are leftover funds that normally go to charities.
He expected to file the new settlement “within days.”
“We're still going to give away a lot of cookies, but it will be cookie giveaway to people who make claims,” he said.
|This content has been archived. It is available through our partners, LexisNexis® and Bloomberg Law.
To view this content, please continue to their sites.
Not a Lexis Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
Not a Bloomberg Law Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
NOT FOR REPRINT
© 2024 ALM Global, LLC, All Rights Reserved. Request academic re-use from www.copyright.com. All other uses, submit a request to [email protected]. For more information visit Asset & Logo Licensing.
You Might Like
View All'Serious Disruptions'?: Federal Courts Brace for Government Shutdown Threat
3 minute read'Unlawful Release'?: Judge Grants Preliminary Injunction in NASCAR Antitrust Lawsuit
3 minute read'Almost Impossible'?: Squire Challenge to Sanctions Spotlights Difficulty of Getting Off Administration's List
4 minute readTrending Stories
- 1Call for Nominations: Elite Trial Lawyers 2025
- 2Senate Judiciary Dems Release Report on Supreme Court Ethics
- 3Senate Confirms Last 2 of Biden's California Judicial Nominees
- 4Morrison & Foerster Doles Out Year-End and Special Bonuses, Raises Base Compensation for Associates
- 5Tom Girardi to Surrender to Federal Authorities on Jan. 7
Who Got The Work
Michael G. Bongiorno, Andrew Scott Dulberg and Elizabeth E. Driscoll from Wilmer Cutler Pickering Hale and Dorr have stepped in to represent Symbotic Inc., an A.I.-enabled technology platform that focuses on increasing supply chain efficiency, and other defendants in a pending shareholder derivative lawsuit. The case, filed Oct. 2 in Massachusetts District Court by the Brown Law Firm on behalf of Stephen Austen, accuses certain officers and directors of misleading investors in regard to Symbotic's potential for margin growth by failing to disclose that the company was not equipped to timely deploy its systems or manage expenses through project delays. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Nathaniel M. Gorton, is 1:24-cv-12522, Austen v. Cohen et al.
Who Got The Work
Edmund Polubinski and Marie Killmond of Davis Polk & Wardwell have entered appearances for data platform software development company MongoDB and other defendants in a pending shareholder derivative lawsuit. The action, filed Oct. 7 in New York Southern District Court by the Brown Law Firm, accuses the company's directors and/or officers of falsely expressing confidence in the company’s restructuring of its sales incentive plan and downplaying the severity of decreases in its upfront commitments. The case is 1:24-cv-07594, Roy v. Ittycheria et al.
Who Got The Work
Amy O. Bruchs and Kurt F. Ellison of Michael Best & Friedrich have entered appearances for Epic Systems Corp. in a pending employment discrimination lawsuit. The suit was filed Sept. 7 in Wisconsin Western District Court by Levine Eisberner LLC and Siri & Glimstad on behalf of a project manager who claims that he was wrongfully terminated after applying for a religious exemption to the defendant's COVID-19 vaccine mandate. The case, assigned to U.S. Magistrate Judge Anita Marie Boor, is 3:24-cv-00630, Secker, Nathan v. Epic Systems Corporation.
Who Got The Work
David X. Sullivan, Thomas J. Finn and Gregory A. Hall from McCarter & English have entered appearances for Sunrun Installation Services in a pending civil rights lawsuit. The complaint was filed Sept. 4 in Connecticut District Court by attorney Robert M. Berke on behalf of former employee George Edward Steins, who was arrested and charged with employing an unregistered home improvement salesperson. The complaint alleges that had Sunrun informed the Connecticut Department of Consumer Protection that the plaintiff's employment had ended in 2017 and that he no longer held Sunrun's home improvement contractor license, he would not have been hit with charges, which were dismissed in May 2024. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Jeffrey A. Meyer, is 3:24-cv-01423, Steins v. Sunrun, Inc. et al.
Who Got The Work
Greenberg Traurig shareholder Joshua L. Raskin has entered an appearance for boohoo.com UK Ltd. in a pending patent infringement lawsuit. The suit, filed Sept. 3 in Texas Eastern District Court by Rozier Hardt McDonough on behalf of Alto Dynamics, asserts five patents related to an online shopping platform. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Rodney Gilstrap, is 2:24-cv-00719, Alto Dynamics, LLC v. boohoo.com UK Limited.
Featured Firms
Law Offices of Gary Martin Hays & Associates, P.C.
(470) 294-1674
Law Offices of Mark E. Salomone
(857) 444-6468
Smith & Hassler
(713) 739-1250