Mandel v. Grande Cosmetics, LLC

Background

In July 2023, the court denied Mandel’s request for preliminary approval of a proposed class settlement. The court identified three concerns: the settlement offered vouchers that could be used only if class members bought more allegedly dangerous products from Grande Cosmetics; the cash component was inadequate; and the claims rate was less than three percent. The court concluded that these features did not show that the settlement was fair, reasonable, and adequate under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23. It allowed the parties to try again, but no renewed request for preliminary approval had been filed by the date of this order.

Mandel’s Requests

Instead of submitting a revised settlement for preliminary approval, Mandel asked the court to enjoin—that is, order another party not to take a specified action—a plaintiff in a similar case in the District of New Jersey. Mandel sought to prevent that plaintiff from requesting preliminary approval of a settlement allegedly produced through a “reverse auction.” Mandel also asked the court to appoint her lawyers as interim class counsel.

The New Jersey plaintiff asked to intervene permissively to oppose Mandel’s injunction request. The court granted permissive intervention and vacated the hearing on that motion.

Ruling

The court denied all of Mandel’s requests. Mandel had disclaimed reliance on Rule 65 and relied only on the All Writs Act, a statute allowing a court to issue orders necessary or appropriate to protect its jurisdiction. The court held that Mandel had not shown that events in New Jersey threatened this court’s jurisdiction. Instead, her concern was that another case might obtain a settlement before she did, which the court found insufficient to justify an injunction under the All Writs Act.

The court also relied on an earlier appellate decision emphasizing that injunctions directed at another federal district court are rare and generally unavailable when the court asked to issue the injunction has no pending settlement of its own. Here, the court had denied even preliminary approval of Mandel’s proposed settlement class, had not certified a class, and had received no renewed approval request or notice of a revised settlement. The court further found that Mandel had not shown that the New Jersey settlement was collusive or the product of a reverse auction. The court stated that Mandel could raise her concerns with the court overseeing the New Jersey litigation.