Marino v. Coach, Inc.

Background

The plaintiffs—Michelle Marino, Deborah Esparza, Monica Rael, and Cera Hinkey—brought this consolidated class action against COACH, Inc., which the order states is now known as Tapestry, Inc. The parties reached a settlement through negotiations assisted and supervised by Magistrate Judge Ona T. Wang.

The settlement covered people who, during the class period, bought one or more items from Coach-branded outlet stores in the United States that were offered at a discount from a “MFSRP” and had a “MFSRP” on the tag. The proposed settlement provided direct relief of $4,661,000 in cash and vouchers, separate payments for attorneys’ fees and expenses and class-representative awards, and injunctive relief requiring compliance with federal and state pricing and advertising laws.

The court had preliminarily approved the settlement and notice plan on August 24, 2020. It held a final approval hearing on February 23, 2021. One putative class member objected but later withdrew the objection, and the settlement administrator received 14 timely requests for exclusion as of January 11, 2021.

Settlement Approval and Class Certification

The court found that the settlement was fair, reasonable, adequate, and in the best interests of the settlement class. It found that the notice provided was the best practicable under the circumstances, reasonably calculated to provide actual notice, and sufficient under Rule 23 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure and due process. The court also found that the defendant had provided the notices required by the Class Action Fairness Act.

For purposes of the settlement, the court certified the settlement class under Rule 23. It found that the class was sufficiently numerous, that common questions existed, that those questions predominated over individual questions, that the representatives’ claims were typical, that the representatives would adequately protect the class, and that a class action was the superior method for resolving the dispute.

The court approved the Settlement Agreement and ordered the parties to perform their obligations. All class members were bound by the order, the judgment of dismissal, and the settlement’s release provisions, whether or not they actually received notice.

Attorneys’ Fees and Class-Representative Awards

Settlement Class Counsel requested $1,175,000 in attorneys’ fees and expenses. The court awarded $685,250 in attorneys’ fees and $28,219.74 in expenses.

For purposes of calculating the fee, the court valued the settlement at $2,741,000. That figure included $500,000 in cash payments, $321,000 in notice and administration costs, and $1,920,000 in vouchers. The court discounted the vouchers’ approximately $3,840,000 face value by 50%, finding that the vouchers were less valuable than cash because they could be used only at Coach outlet stores and would expire after one year. The court approved a fee equal to 25% of the $2,741,000 valuation.

The court also considered the lodestar method, which calculates fees based on hours worked multiplied by billing rates. It found the reported lodestar of more than $1.4 million or $1.6 million, depending on the submission, to be of limited value because the supporting information was inconsistent, lacked adequate task-based detail, and appeared likely to include unnecessary, inefficient, or duplicative work. Each named plaintiff received an approved service award of $2,000, for a total of $8,000.

Dismissal and Other Relief

The court approved Feeding America as the recipient of certain remaining cash and the cash equivalent of vouchers that could not be distributed to claimants, as well as cash from uncashed checks. The plaintiffs and settlement class members released the defendant and the defined “Coach Released Persons & Entities” from the released claims.

The court entered a judgment of dismissal dismissing the action and the claims of the plaintiffs and settlement class members with prejudice and without costs other than those provided for in the Settlement Agreement. It permanently barred class members from bringing or continuing released claims against the defendant or released persons and entities. The court retained jurisdiction to interpret, implement, and enforce the settlement and to resolve disputes about distributing settlement benefits.

The court directed the Clerk of Court to terminate all open motions and close the case.