Aguirre v. Hello Products, LLC

Background

The parties entered into a class action settlement agreement in or about June 2022. The court preliminarily approved the settlement on June 15, 2022, provisionally certified the settlement class, appointed class counsel and a settlement administrator, and authorized notice to class members. The settlement class consisted of all purchasers of the products from their launch through June 15, 2022.

The plaintiffs later moved for final approval of the settlement and separately moved for attorneys’ fees, reimbursement of litigation expenses, and service awards. The defendant did not oppose either motion. The court held a fairness hearing on January 10, 2023, and no objections were lodged to the settlement, service awards, or attorneys’ fees and expenses.

Settlement Approval

For settlement purposes only, the court found that the proposed class satisfied the requirements for class certification under Rule 23 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. The court found that the class was sufficiently numerous, had common legal and factual questions, had typical claims, and was adequately represented. It also found that common questions predominated and that a class action was the superior method for resolving the dispute.

The court found that the notice program, settlement website, telephone helpline, online notice, and procedures for opting out and submitting claims complied with the preliminary approval order, Rule 23, and due-process requirements. The court determined that no exclusions from the settlement class were effective. Andrew McClarty’s exclusion request was found invalid because it did not provide the required address or telephone number, was not signed, and was not corrected after a deficiency notice.

The court found that the settlement was procedurally fair because it resulted from vigorous, arm’s-length negotiations after experienced counsel investigated and evaluated the claims. It also found the settlement substantively fair, reasonable, and adequate based on the complexity and likely duration of the litigation, the stage of the case, the risks of establishing liability and damages, the risks of maintaining the class through trial, the lack of objections, and the settlement’s reasonable relationship to the possible recovery and litigation risks. The opinion stated that approval of the settlement did not require the court to decide the ultimate factual or legal merits of the underlying dispute.

Judgment and Awards

The court approved the settlement, the releases of the released claims, and the other settlement terms. The parties were directed to perform under the settlement agreement, subject to the stated limits on changes they could jointly make without additional court approval. The judgment released the covered claims and permanently barred settlement class members and persons acting for them from pursuing those claims against the released parties.

The court dismissed the action with prejudice. It ordered the settling parties to bear their own attorneys’ fees and costs except as provided in the settlement agreement and judgment. The court granted the plaintiffs’ motion for attorneys’ fees and reimbursement of expenses, awarding class counsel $420,000 in attorneys’ fees and $21,300.90 in litigation expenses. The court also granted the motion for service awards, awarding $3,500 each to Plaintiffs Patellos and Fishon and $350 each to the other claimants. The fees, expenses, and service awards were to be paid from the settlement fund.

The judgment stated that it was final and appealable. The court retained jurisdiction over implementation and enforcement of the settlement, administration and enforcement of the judgment, and related matters. The Clerk was directed to enter judgment and close the case.

Disposition

The court approved the class settlement, granted the motion for attorneys’ fees and reimbursement of expenses, granted the motion for service awards, dismissed the action with prejudice, and directed that the case be closed.