Moore v. GlaxoSmithKline Consumer Healthcare Holdings LLC
- Jeffrey White
- 4:20-cv-09077
- U.S. District Court · Northern District of California
- 2
In Moore v. GlaxoSmithKline, Judge White ordered clarification of why Plaintiff appeared to abandon potential Rule 23(b)(3) remedies in seeking settlement approval.
Lisa M. Moore, the proposed class settlement, and Plaintiffs, who were ordered to clarify their apparent abandonment of potential Rule 23(b)(3) remedies.
What happened
Lisa M. Moore asked the court to approve a settlement for a class certified under Rule 23(b)(2), along with a service award and attorneys’ fees and costs. The court had previously denied, without prejudice, certification under Rule 23(b)(3) because the surveys did not sufficiently isolate the challenged language.
The court noted that its earlier order had identified decisions where plaintiffs corrected similar survey problems and renewed their requests for class certification. It therefore asked Plaintiffs to explain why they appeared to be abandoning possible remedies under Rule 23(b)(3).
Judge Jeffrey White ordered Plaintiffs to provide that clarification by August 22, 2024. The opinion does not decide whether to approve the settlement or award fees and costs.
The detailed version
- Moore v. GlaxoSmithKline Consumer Healthcare Holdings LLC · No. 4:20-cv-09077
- Jeffrey White
- Aug. 9, 2024
Background
Lisa M. Moore filed a motion seeking approval of a class-action settlement under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23(b)(2), as well as a service award and attorneys’ fees and costs. The court stated that proposed class settlements must be fair, reasonable, and adequate under Rule 23(e)(2).
On January 30, 2024, the court certified a class under Rule 23(b)(2). It denied without prejudice the request to certify a class under Rule 23(b)(3), finding that Dr. Michael Dennis’s consumer-perception and conjoint surveys did not sufficiently isolate the challenged language. The court’s earlier order cited two decisions in which courts later granted renewed class-certification motions after plaintiffs corrected similar survey deficiencies.
Court’s Action
The court requested clarification about the rationale for Plaintiff’s apparent abandonment of potential remedies under Rule 23(b)(3). It ordered Plaintiffs to provide that clarification by August 22, 2024.
This order does not state that the court approved or rejected the proposed settlement, service award, or request for attorneys’ fees and costs. It is a request for clarification concerning the settlement motion and the potential Rule 23(b)(3) remedies.
Read the full 2-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.