Nichols v. Noom Inc.

Background

The plaintiffs, Mojo Nichols, Susan Brewster, Duane Dea, Maryanne Deracleo, Karen Kelly, Rebecca Richards, Jennifer Sellers, and Stacy Spencer, brought the action individually and on behalf of similarly situated people against Noom, Inc., Artem Petakov, and John Does 1 to 5. The parties entered into a class-action settlement agreement. The court had preliminarily approved the settlement, provisionally certified the settlement class, appointed class representatives and class counsel, and approved the notice procedures.

The court held a fairness hearing on July 11, 2022, to decide whether the settlement was fair, reasonable, and adequate. Notice was provided to the class under the court-approved procedures. No class members objected, and eight class members asked to opt out.

Settlement Class

For settlement purposes only, the court certified a class under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23(e). The class consists of natural persons who purchased a Noom Healthy Weight Subscription in the United States through the Noom website or mobile application from May 12, 2016, through October 6, 2020; were charged by Noom for the subscription; and did not receive a full refund or chargeback of all subscription charges. People who purchased through the Apple App Store or Google Play Store were excluded. The judgment binds all persons within the class who were not excluded.

The court found, for settlement purposes only, that the class satisfied the requirements concerning numerosity, common questions, typical claims, adequate representation, predominance of common questions, and superiority of the class-action procedure. The court also found that the notice, exclusion, and objection procedures satisfied Rule 23 and due-process requirements.

Ruling

The court found that the settlement resulted from arm’s-length negotiations and satisfied the standards for final approval under Rule 23(e)(2) and the cited Second Circuit precedent. It granted final approval of the settlement and directed the parties to carry it out. The settlement’s releases were found to be fair, just, reasonable, and adequate; upon the settlement’s effective date, released claims would be fully, finally, and permanently released, relinquished, and discharged.

The court granted the requests for service awards and for class counsel’s fees and costs. Those amounts were to be paid from the settlement fund in the amounts and on the terms stated in the settlement agreement. The parties generally were to bear their own attorneys’ fees and costs except as otherwise provided in the settlement agreement and judgment.

The court dismissed the action on the merits and with prejudice and closed the case. It retained exclusive jurisdiction, to the extent necessary, to resolve disputes under the settlement agreement or enforce its terms. The order stated that it was final and appealable and constituted a judgment under Rules 54 and 58.