Classified Class Action Blog

  • All Topics
  • Contributors
  • About
  • Contact
  • Subscribe

California Court Applies Strict Scrutiny to Reject Uber Class Settlement

September 15, 2016 by D. Matthew Allen

A Northern District of California judge refused to preliminarily approve a class settlement of Uber customers who used its “Rideshare Services” in which Uber would have paid class members $28.5 million. The court was concerned about several things.

First, the settlement divided the settlement fund among class members on a per capita basis, which resulted in the compensation of some members who weren’t injured at the expense of persons who had been injured.

Second, the settlement divided the available funds among all class members equally, regardless of the number of Safe Ride Fees each class member paid. It thus failed to allocate compensation among class members on a fair basis.

Third, the settlement fell below the range of possible approval because the amount paid to the class was disproportionate to the total amount in profits Uber made on the practice.

This case illustrates the fact that federal courts are giving class action settlements greater scrutiny. This trend will only accelerate as revisions to Fed. R. Civ. P. 23 tightening settlement criteria take effect.

Philiben v. Uber Technologies, Inc., 2016 WL 4537912 (N.D. Cal. Aug. 30, 2016).

Print Friendly, PDF & Email

« Previous Article

Ninth Circuit Affirms Certification of “No Injury” Wage and Hour Class

Next Article »

Nothing Shady Where State Statutory Language Restricting Class Actions is Clear
D. Matthew Allen

About D. Matthew Allen

Matt Allen is a shareholder at Carlton Fields in Tampa, Florida.

Get Weekly Updates!

2020 Class Action Survey – Now Available!

DOWNLOAD NOW
Carlton Fields Logo A blog focused on the latest class action developments and trends by the attorneys of Carlton Fields.

Search

Topics

Industries/Practices
  • Construction
  • Consumer Finance & Banking
  • Food & Beverage
  • Health Care
  • Insurance
  • Labor, Employment & ERISA
  • Manufacturing & Products
  • Pharmaceutical
  • Privacy & Technology
  • Securities
  • Telecommunications

Substantive/Procedural
  • Arbitration
  • CAFA
  • Certification
    • Adequacy
    • Ascertainability
    • Commonality
    • Numerosity
    • Predominance
    • Superiority
    • Typicality
  • Decertification
  • Settlements
  • Standing
  • Striking of Class Allegations

Courts/Jurisdiction
  • Federal District Courts
  • Federal Circuit Courts of Appeal
  • United States Supreme Court
  • State Courts

Monthly Archives

Recent Articles

  • MDL Court Denies Class Certification of Proposed “NAS Babies” Class
  • What’s Good for Trial Is Good for Class Certification: Fifth Circuit Rules That Daubert Applies at Class Certification Stage
  • One Game, One Stadium: Eleventh Circuit Spikes Collateral Challenge to Tampa Bay Buccaneers Proposed Class Action Settlement

Get Weekly Updates!

Carlton Fields

  • carltonfields.com
  • Practices
  • Industries
  • Class Action Survey

Related Industries/Practices

  • National Class Actions
  • National Trial Practice
  • Appellate & Trial Support
  • Our Class Action Experience

Classified: The Class Action Blog

  • All Topics
  • Contributors
  • About
  • Contact

Classified Logo
© 2014–2021 Carlton Fields, P.A. · Carlton Fields practices law in California as Carlton Fields, LLP · All Rights Reserved · Privacy Policy · Disclaimer

Carlton Fields publications should not be construed as legal advice on any specific facts or circumstances. The contents are intended for general information and educational purposes only, and should not be relied on as if it were advice about a particular fact situation. The distribution of this publication is not intended to create, and receipt of it does not constitute, an attorney-client relationship with Carlton Fields. This publication may not be quoted or referred to in any other publication or proceeding without the prior written consent of the firm, to be given or withheld at our discretion. To request reprint permission for any of our publications, please contact us. The views set forth herein are the personal views of the author and do not necessarily reflect those of the firm. This site may contain hypertext links to information created and maintained by other entities. Carlton Fields does not control or guarantee the accuracy or completeness of this outside information, nor is the inclusion of a link to be intended as an endorsement of those outside sites. This site may be considered attorney advertising in some jurisdictions.