Classified Class Action Blog

  • All Topics
  • Contributors
  • About
  • Contact
  • Subscribe

Lawyers Sanctioned for Seeking to Settle Federal Court Class Action in State Court

August 15, 2016 by D. Matthew Allen

Lawyers seeking to settle class actions pending in federal court by dismissing and refiling in state court beware! In two recent orders, a federal judge in the Western District of Arkansas ruled that the attorneys representing a class and defendants alike violated Rule 11 and abused the judicial process by this practice. The court sanctioned the lawyers for the class in the form of a reprimand. It retreated from a formal sanction of the defendants’ lawyers because it was not convinced they acted in bad faith. Nonetheless, both sides were subjected to substantial criticism.

It appears to have been a common practice in Arkansas (and perhaps elsewhere) to seek to implement in state court the settlement of a class action pending in federal court. In many states, including Arkansas, litigants perceive the review in state court to be more lenient, particularly in light of CAFA restrictions on settlement terms and attorney’s fees awards. Such was the case in Adams v. United Services Automobile Association. The plaintiff filed the case in Arkansas state court, but the defendants removed it to federal court pursuant to CAFA. The parties eventually settled the case on a classwide basis. The settlement agreement called for the federal case to be dismissed, and the case to be refiled and resolved in state court. In the state court settlement filings, the parties valued the settlement at $3.4 million. The defendants paid class counsel $1.8 million pursuant to a “quick-pay provision.” The state court approved the settlement despite a 4 percent claim rate. Although over 15,000 notices were sent to class members, only 651 made claims.

The same day the state court entered its order approving the settlement, the federal court issued a show-cause order as to why sanctions should not issue against the settling attorneys for improperly engaging in mid-litigation forum shopping. On April 14, 2016, the court ruled that under prior Eighth Circuit precedent, a party is not permitted to dismiss a federal court lawsuit merely to escape an adverse decision or seek a more favorable forum. Class counsel admitted that they sought to implement the settlement in state court because Arkansas made it more difficult for class members to object. Arkansas also does not apply a rigorous analysis test to determining class certification. In its April 14 order, the court expressed an intent to sanction all settling attorneys – for plaintiff and defendants alike.

In its August 3 order, the court reaffirmed that sanctions against plaintiff’s counsel were appropriate, rejecting counsel’s arguments that the attorneys had never been sanctioned before, the dismissal practice was common in class litigation, and the federal court lacked authority to review the settlement when no class was certified at the time of the dismissal. The court, however, backed off its intent to sanction defense counsel because the record reflected that the defendants directed its counsel to settle, putting them between a rock and a hard place, given the plaintiff’s demand to return to state court.

Although the only sanction against plaintiff’s counsel was a reprimand, the case is a warning shot to all class action lawyers that forum shopping in order to settle a class action, no matter how common the practice may be, will no longer be countenanced.

Adams v. United Services Automobile Association, 2016 WL 1465433 (W.D. Ark. Apr. 14, 2016, subsequent opinion, 2016 WL 4129115 (W.D. Ark. Aug. 3, 2016).

Print Friendly, PDF & Email

« Previous Article

“Placeholder” Motions to Certify are Unnecessary after Campbell-Ewald According to South Carolina District Court

Next Article »

Third Circuit Rejects Inflated-Value Theory of Damages, Declines to Certify Law School Tuition Class
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.