Dulberg v. Uber Technologies, Inc.

Background

Martin Dulberg, individually and on behalf of a certified class, moved to amend the judgment under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 56(e) or obtain relief from the judgment under Rule 60(b). The opinion also analyzed the request under Rule 59(e). The case had settled, and the settlement fund was to be distributed among 4,594 class members after approved attorney fees and expenses.

Earlier proceedings addressed the expenses that class counsel could deduct from the settlement fund. The court approved $5,701.23 for services by Angeion Group, the third-party settlement administrator. Uber separately agreed to pay certain mailing costs. After final approval of the settlement, counsel reported that the final request had accidentally omitted additional administrator expenses. The amount ultimately requiring possible authorization was described as closer to $25,000, after excluding amounts already approved or separately paid by Uber.

Arguments and analysis

Dulberg submitted invoices and sought reconsideration of the prior decision. He argued that the revised class notice gave class members enough opportunity to review and object to the full expenses, that the settlement allocation already contemplated payment of the administrator’s balance from the fund, and that equitable relief was appropriate because the administrator’s work was court ordered.

The court rejected those arguments. It explained that the settlement materials referred to the $5,701 in expenses requested and approved, not an unlimited authorization for later charges. The court also found that most of the invoices predated the final-approval motion and could have been submitted before judgment. Under Rule 59(e), a judgment may be changed for newly discovered evidence, clear error or manifest injustice, or an intervening change in controlling law. Rule 60(b) permits relief for specified reasons such as mistake, newly discovered evidence, fraud, or other extraordinary circumstances. The court found that none of those grounds was shown.

The court further stated that the administrator had been retained by class counsel, not appointed by the court, and that counsel’s refusal to pay the administrator while delaying distribution to the class presented an additional problem.

Disposition

The court denied the plaintiff’s motion. It ordered that the settlement funds be distributed to the class by February 14 at noon. The ruling concerned whether the judgment and approved settlement expenses could be reopened; it did not reconsider the underlying settlement’s merits.