Pampers settlement thrown out over excessive attorney fees
In 2011, P&G agreed to pay $3 million settlement after a few dozen plaintiffs had claimed that Pampers Dry Max diapers caused rashes on babies.
August 07, 2013 at 07:06 AM
4 minute read
The original version of this story was published on Law.com
This time, the babies weren't the only ones crying foul. Last Friday, the 6th Circuit Court of Appeals threw out a class action lawsuit settlement plaintiffs reached with Proctor & Gamble Co. (P&G), saying the attorneys who brought the suit were receiving too high a share.
In 2011, P&G agreed to pay $3 million settlement after a few dozen plaintiffs had claimed that Pampers Dry Max diapers caused rashes on babies. The attorneys that brought the suit were to receive $2.73 million of that total. Each of plaintiffs in the suit would receive $1,000 for their troubles.
A Washington nonprofit, the Center for Class Action Fairness, challenged the settlement in the 6th Circuit Court of Appeals in Cincinnati. The 6th Circuit ruling agreed with the nonprofit, saying most Pampers customers who had bought the diapers received little benefit from the agreement. A district court had approved the original settlement.
P&G now has a decision on their hands. They may move to reach a new settlement, or they may also move to dismiss the case entirely. “We appreciate the court's consideration of the legal issues in this case and we'll study our options in light of this opinion,” a P&G spokesman said on Monday.
Want more about the Pampers case? Check out The Wall Street Journal for more coverage.
And for more InsideCounsel litigation news, read:
This time, the babies weren't the only ones crying foul. Last Friday, the 6th Circuit Court of Appeals threw out a class action lawsuit settlement plaintiffs reached with Proctor & Gamble Co. (P&G), saying the attorneys who brought the suit were receiving too high a share.
In 2011, P&G agreed to pay $3 million settlement after a few dozen plaintiffs had claimed that Pampers Dry Max diapers caused rashes on babies. The attorneys that brought the suit were to receive $2.73 million of that total. Each of plaintiffs in the suit would receive $1,000 for their troubles.
A Washington nonprofit, the Center for Class Action Fairness, challenged the settlement in the 6th Circuit Court of Appeals in Cincinnati. The 6th Circuit ruling agreed with the nonprofit, saying most Pampers customers who had bought the diapers received little benefit from the agreement. A district court had approved the original settlement.
P&G now has a decision on their hands. They may move to reach a new settlement, or they may also move to dismiss the case entirely. “We appreciate the court's consideration of the legal issues in this case and we'll study our options in light of this opinion,” a P&G spokesman said on Monday.
Want more about the Pampers case? Check out The Wall Street Journal for more coverage.
And for more InsideCounsel litigation news, read:
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 AllOld Laws, New Tricks: Lawyers Using Patchwork of Creative Legal Theories to Target New Tech
Lawsuit Against Amazon Could Reshape E-Commerce Landscape
King Kullen—the Nation's First Supermarket—Hires Outside Counsel as GC
Trending Stories
- 1Legal Events for Georgia Lawyers
- 2'There is No Time to Waste': Matt Gaetz Withdraws From AG Nomination
- 3The Growing PFAS Morass: Why Insurance Should Cover These Products Liability Claims
- 4Dallas Jury Awards $98.65M in Botham Jean Killing by Dallas Officer
- 5In Talc Bankruptcy, Andy Birchfield Skipped His Deposition. Could He Face Sanctions?
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