In re Hudson's Bay Company Data Security Incident Consumer Litigation
- P. Castel
- 1:18-cv-08472
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 2
In re Hudson’s Bay Data Security Incident Litigation: Judge Castel granted preliminary settlement approval with modified objection procedures.
Class members receiving settlement notices, particularly those who may want to object to the proposed settlements, and the parties responsible for preparing those notices.
What happened
In re Hudson’s Bay Company Data Security Incident Consumer Litigation involved motions seeking preliminary approval of class-action settlements in the captioned cases. The court emphasized that it must protect absent class members and make it easy for them to participate, opt out, object, or submit claims.
The proposed approval orders would have required people objecting to the settlements to provide detailed information about themselves and their lawyers, including fee arrangements, past participation in class-action settlements, and summaries of their evidence. The court found these requirements would unnecessarily discourage objections without providing a countervailing benefit.
The court granted the motions for preliminary approval with a modification to the objection procedures. Judge Castel ordered that all notices to class members follow the objection procedures in the approval orders.
The detailed version
- In re Hudson's Bay Company Data Security Incident Consumer Litigation · No. 1:18-cv-08472
- P. Castel
- July 22, 2021
Background
The opinion addresses motions for preliminary approval of class-action settlements in two captioned cases, including Arkansas Federal Credit Union, et al. v. Hudson’s Bay Company, No. 19-cv-4492, and In re Hudson’s Bay Company Data Security Incident Consumer Litigation, No. 18-cv-8472. Preliminary approval is an initial court review of a proposed class settlement before further settlement procedures occur.
The court described its responsibility to protect the rights of absent class members. It also emphasized that settlement participation should be as easy as possible, including for class members who want to submit a claim, opt out, object, or appear at a hearing.
Proposed Objection Procedures
The plaintiffs’ proposed Orders of Preliminary Approval would have required objectors to provide detailed background information about themselves and their legal counsel. The required information would have included fee arrangements, the objectors’ historical participation in class-action settlements, and evidentiary summaries.
The court concluded that these requirements would unnecessarily frustrate and discourage objections, without providing countervailing benefits to the court or the class.
Ruling
The court granted the motions for preliminary approval of the class-action settlements with modification to the procedures for objecting. It ordered that all notices to class members conform to the objection procedures set forth in the Orders of Preliminary Approval.
The opinion is signed by P. Castel, United States District Judge, and dated July 22, 2021.
Read the full 2-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.