Classified Class Action Blog

  • All Topics
  • Contributors
  • About
  • Contact
  • Subscribe

Southern District of California Rejects Coupon Class Settlement

May 19, 2016 by Jaret J. Fuente and D. Matthew Allen

Jaret J. Fuente and D. Matthew Allen

The Southern District of California rejected a pre-certification class settlement because it provided for an inadequate coupon payment and a tenuous cy pres award, and included a clear sailing attorney fee provision. Plaintiff Hofman alleged that Dutch, LLC sells jeans labeled “Made in the USA” that contain foreign-made components (buttons, rivets, zippers, etc.) in violation of the California Business and Professional Code and the California Consumer Legal Remedies Act. The parties sought provisional certification of a class of:

Persons in California who purchased in California or through a website maintained by Dutch, LLC, defendant’s Current/Elliot jeans product that contained any foreign-made component parts that was labeled “MADE IN THE USA” or “MADE IN THE USA” (the “Jeans”), from September 5, 2010 to December 21, 2015, for non-commercial use.

Before class certification, the parties reached a settlement pursuant to which Dutch agreed to distribute $20 gift cards to class members who submit a valid claim, to make a cy pres donation of $250,000 to five separate charities, and to pay attorney fees pursuant to a clear sailing provision up to $175,000 and costs up to $90,000.

The court assessed the proposed class and concluded it met the certification requirements of Rule 23. But it determined the settlement was inadequate across the board.

The court concluded the gift cards were coupons because, to take advantage of them, consumers would first have to pay money out of their own pockets. It explained that the average price of the jeans was $205, and consumers could only use the coupons on a website (not in a store). The least expensive item on the website at the time of the court’s assessment was $58.80, making the highest possible value of the gift cards a 34 percent discount on a future purchase. In addition, the coupons were not transferrable, which further limited their value. The court concluded Dutch stood to experience a net benefit from the coupons, and found the coupon settlement therefore inadequate.

The court then concluded the cy pres award was inadequate because it failed meet the objectives of the applicable California statutes. The missions of the five charities included offering mentorship programs to at-risk teenage girls, supporting breast cancer research, supporting research for juvenile diabetes, offering scholarships to aspiring fashion designers, and offering employment, recreational, and socialization special needs programs. The court concluded none of the charities bore any relation to consumer protection.

Finally, the court concluded the clear sailing provision of the attorney fee payment created a danger of collusion during settlement negotiations which the court determined was unrefuted by the record. The court noted that although the amount of the attorney fee did not seem unreasonably high, class members received almost no benefit from the settlement.

Hofman v. Dutch, LLC, Case No. 3:14-CV-02418-PC-JLB (April 26, 2016).

Print Friendly, PDF & Email

« Previous Article

Supreme Court Steers Clear of Consumer Standing Issue in Spokeo

Next Article »

…And We’re Back! Still No Resurgence of “Picking Off” After Campbell-Ewald
Jaret J. Fuente

About Jaret J. Fuente

Jaret Fuente is a shareholder at Carlton Fields in Tampa, Florida. Connect with Jaret on LinkedIn.

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.