Payero v. Mattress Firm, Inc.

Background

Antonio Payero and Adam Maldonado brought this putative class action against Mattress Firm, Inc. and Global Home Imports, Inc. The opinion text does not describe the underlying claims in detail. The parties signed and filed a settlement agreement on January 9, 2023. After preliminary approval orders, notice to potential class members, and an opportunity to opt out or object, the court held a fairness hearing on August 16, 2023.

Class Certification and Notice

The court finally certified a class under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23(a) and (b)(3), but only for settlement purposes. The class consists of United States residents who purchased a Bed Tech-brand HR Platform bed frame during the class period. The covered model numbers are HR33, HR33XL, HR46, HR50, and HR60, or HR66. The class excludes the defendants and related people and entities, the assigned judges and their immediate families, and anyone who timely requested exclusion.

The court found that the notice was the best practicable notice under the circumstances and adequately informed class members about the case, settlement, rights to opt out or object, the fairness hearing, and the judgment’s binding effect. The court also found that the required notice to government officials under the Class Action Fairness Act had been provided and that no government objections or comments were received. Kenneth Murphy, Linda Wills, Linda Helgeson, and Danielle Draut submitted timely and valid exclusion requests and are not bound by the judgment.

Settlement Approval

The court approved the settlement as fair, reasonable, adequate, and in the best interests of the parties and class members. It found no fraud or collusion, noted that the agreement resulted from arm’s-length negotiations including mediation, and determined that the complexity, expense, and likely duration of further litigation favored settlement. The court also relied on the experience of class counsel and the meaningful relief provided by the agreement.

Defendants’ maximum financial commitment for refunds or gift cards to class members is $4,900,000. Class members who do not return their covered bed frames receive an extended warranty. Class members seeking refunds have two years from the effective date to return their products to a Mattress Firm store. The agreement also provides for administration of the compensation process by RG/2 Claims Administration, LLC.

Release, Injunction, and Dismissal

The judgment makes the settlement binding on the parties and class members who did not opt out and gives it preclusive effect for matters covered by the agreement’s release. Covered claims are released, including unknown or unsuspected claims, but personal-injury claims are not released. The court permanently barred and enjoined non-excluded class members from pursuing covered claims in lawsuits, arbitrations, or other proceedings. The judgment does not prevent class members from contacting government agencies or receiving benefits obtained by a government agency.

The court dismissed the action, including all individual and class claims presented in it, on the merits and with prejudice, with no fees or costs except those provided for in the judgment and settlement. The order states that the settlement and judgment are not admissions of liability, wrongdoing, or the validity of the claims, and that defendants continue to deny that the requirements for class certification were met for purposes other than settlement. The court retained jurisdiction over administration, enforcement, interpretation, and related matters.

Fees and Incentive Awards

The court awarded $825,000 in attorneys’ fees, costs, and expenses to Bursor & Fisher, P.A., as class counsel. It also awarded $5,000 to each plaintiff as an incentive award.

Classification Note

This is classified as a procedural order because the court approved a negotiated class settlement and entered judgment rather than deciding the underlying claims through adversarial merits findings. The order’s dismissal language states that the action was dismissed on the merits and with prejudice, but the opinion does not describe a merits determination of the underlying claims.