Classified Class Action Blog

  • All Topics
  • Contributors
  • About
  • Contact
  • Subscribe

Seventh Circuit Approves Cy Pres Settlement

August 8, 2018 by Carlton Fields

We previously reported on the uncertainty of cy pres settlements in class action lawsuits. Although the Supreme Court granted cert on the issue, the Seventh Circuit weighed in during the interim by approving a settlement that included a potential payout to cy pres recipients.

The case arose out of a million phone calls made to consumers throughout 2011 and 2012 in which people were offered a chance to go on a free cruise if they agreed to participate in a political survey. Plaintiffs filed a class action lawsuit under the Telephone Consumer Protection Act seeking damages against Caribbean Cruise Line and other defendants for the calls. The district court certified the class and ultimately granted partial summary judgment in favor of the plaintiff. A trial was scheduled. However, the parties agreed to settle the suit in lieu of going to trial. The defendants agreed to pay between $56 million and $76 million into a fund to be paid out to the class members. The agreement also specified that if claimants failed to timely cash checks from the fund during the second round of payments, the remaining funds would go to appropriate cy pres recipients, subject to the district court’s approval.

One class member appealed the approval of the settlement alleging that the notice to class members was inadequate – specifically, that the notice was unclear in its description of the process for selecting cy pres recipients. However, the Seventh Circuit found that because the notice included instructions for recommending recipients and also provided a website for members to find out more information, this was sufficient to meet the notice requirements specified under the Federal Rules.

Birchmeier v. Caribbean Cruise Line, Nos. 17-1626, 17-1778, 17-1953, 17-1969, 17-1984 & 17-2857 (7th Cir. July 24, 2018).

Print Friendly, PDF & Email

« Previous Article

Fourth Circuit Holds Plaintiffs Who Allege Identity Theft Have Standing to Sue Post-Data Breach, But What Does it Mean For Certification?

Next Article »

Defense Victories in Genetic and Biometric Privacy Class Actions

Avatar

About Carlton Fields

Related Articles

  1. Ninth Circuit Holds California Can’t Double-Dip By Seeking Restitution for Citizens Bound By Class Settlement
  2. Data Breach Class Actions: 2015 Year in Review and 2016 Preview
  3. Declined: Second Circuit Panel Shreds Visa and MasterCard Antitrust Settlement

Get Weekly Updates!

2019 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

  • Class Action Survey: True or False? The Amount of Time In-House Attorneys Spent Managing Class Actions Has Increased.
  • No Speaking? No Standing!
  • Should I Stay or Should I Go? Bankruptcy Preemption May Bar FDCPA and FCCPA Claims Either Way

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
© 2014–2019 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.