Taqueria El Primo LLC v. Illinois Farmers Insurance Company

Background

This is a class-action lawsuit filed in the United States District Court for the District of Minnesota. The named plaintiffs are Taqueria El Primo LLC, Victor Manuel Delgado Jimenez, Mitchelle Chavez Solis, Benjamin Tarnowski, El Chinelo Produce, Inc., and Virginia Sanchez-Gomez, each suing on behalf of themselves and others similarly situated. The defendants are Illinois Farmers Insurance Company, Farmers Insurance Exchange, Farmers Group, Inc., Truck Insurance Exchange, and Mid-Century Insurance Company.

The case previously resulted in a class-action settlement. On October 21, 2025, the court granted Class Counsel's motion for distribution of the net settlement proceeds. After that initial distribution was completed, residual funds — estimated at approximately $43,874.37 — remained.

The Motion

Plaintiffs filed an unopposed motion asking the court to distribute the residual funds to charitable organizations using the legal doctrine of "cy pres" (a doctrine allowing unclaimed class-action funds to be given to a charity whose mission is reasonably related to the goals of the lawsuit, rather than returned to defendants or escheated to the government).

The settlement administrator, Analytics Consulting LLC, provided supporting declarations. It reported that two class members had requested that their checks be reissued, with a final negotiation deadline of July 24, 2026. It also estimated that conducting a second distribution to class members would cost approximately $16,810 — about 38.3 percent of the remaining funds — and that the average payment each class member would receive would be only $2.91, while the majority of checks would cost approximately $1.80 each to issue. The court found these facts established that a second distribution was not economically feasible.

Legal Standards Applied

The court cited Eighth Circuit authority holding that a cy pres distribution is appropriate only where further direct distribution to class members is not feasible. See Jones v. Monsanto Co., 38 F.4th 693, 698–99 (8th Cir. 2022); In re BankAmerica Corp. Sec. Litig., 775 F.3d 1060, 1064 (8th Cir. 2015). The court also applied the standard that unclaimed funds "should be distributed for a purpose as near as possible to the legitimate objectives underlying the lawsuit, the interests of class members, and the interests of those similarly situated." In re Airline Ticket Comm'n Antitrust Litig., 307 F.3d 679, 682 (8th Cir. 2002). The settlement agreement itself (Docket No. 779-1 ¶ 12.e.) authorized a cy pres distribution of de minimis residual funds.

The Court's Ruling

Judge Tunheim granted the unopposed motion in full. The court made the following specific findings and directives:

- The remaining funds are de minimis and a second distribution is not economically feasible. - The cy pres recipients — Mid-Minnesota Legal Aid and the Justice & Democracy Centers of Minnesota — are appropriate because they align with the objectives of the lawsuit (which involved state law claims), the interests of class members, and the geographic scope of the class (Minnesota). - Mid-Minnesota Legal Aid provides services throughout Minnesota and promotes enforcement of Minnesota's consumer protection laws. - The Justice & Democracy Centers of Minnesota provides civic education dedicated to promoting understanding of the rule of law and an independent judiciary through free, accessible, and equitable programming; its cy pres funds are to be sent to its fiscal agent, The Foundation of the Federal Bar Association, a 501(c)(3) nonprofit. - The residual funds are to be split equally between the two recipients, each receiving 50 percent.

Logistical Directives

- The escrow agent is directed to liquidate the escrow account within three business days of the order, ensuring any outstanding reissued checks have been negotiated or voided before liquidation. - The settlement administrator is directed to issue the cy pres payments within three business days after receiving the funds from the escrow agent. - The court retains jurisdiction to interpret, implement, and enforce the order.

Note on Case Posture

This order concerns the final disposition of residual settlement funds in a concluded class-action settlement. It does not address the underlying merits of the claims against the insurance company defendants.