Supreme Court of the United States · Official docket →
Brian Perryman v. Josue Romero, et al.
Paid petition · United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit, No. 16-56307 · judgment October 3, 2018
Before the decision, about 4.7× the 4.1% base rate. The model weighted this up for counsel who has won certiorari before, a Ninth Circuit decision below, and a circuit split argued in the petition.
Question presented
Rule 23(e)(2) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure requires that the district court approve class-action settlements only if a settlement is “fair, reasonable, and adequate.” The limitations that this language of Rule 23(e) places on the approval of cy pres settlements are presently before this Court in Frank v. Gaos, No. 17-961 (argued Oct. 31, 2018), on a writ of certiorari to the Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit. In this case, the Ninth Circuit applied the same circuit precedent at issue in Gaos to sustain a class settlement that resulted in a mere $225,000 in cash refunds to 3,000 class members out of a class of 1.3 million (plus a mostly worthless $20 coupon to each class member). That $225,000 paid to class members is, however, dwarfed by settlement provisions that paid $8.85 million to class counsel and directed approximately $3 million in cy pres to three local schools, including the alma mater law school of several of the attorneys. This cy pres is being paid to third parties even though it is “technically feasible” to pay the class (Pet. App. 22a): every class member is known from defendants’ records and is receiving a distribution. Those cy pres awards will quite likely be increased substantially because the court of appeals below reversed the district court’s refusal to apply the Class Action Fairness Act, 28 U.S.C. § 1712(a), to the $20 credits, and remanded for a recalculation of fees under that Act. Under the settlement, any decrease in fees serves only to increase the cy pres awards, with nothing going to the class. The question presented in this case is similar to that presented in Gaos: (i)
Counsel of record
For petitioner
Theodore Harold Frank
Hamilton Lincoln Law Institute
For respondent
Deepak Gupta
Gupta Wessler LLP
Proceedings
- Jun 24 2019Motion for leave to file amicus brief filed by Center for Individual Rights GRANTED.
- Jun 24 2019Petition DENIED.
- Jun 19 2019Letter from counsel for petitioner regarding suggestion of bankruptcy of respondent Provide Commerce, Inc. received. (Distributed)
- Jun 19 2019Letter from counsel for respondents Josue Romero, et al. regarding suggestion of bankruptcy of respondent Provide Commerce, Inc. received.
- Jun 18 2019Letter from counsel for respondents Josue Romero, et al. regarding suggestion of bankruptcy of respondent Provide Commerce, Inc. received. (Distributed)
- Jun 11 2019Suggestion of bankruptcy of respondent Provide Commerce, Inc. received from counsel for respondent. (Distributed)
- Jun 07 2019Reply of petitioner Brian Perryman filed. (Distributed)
- Jun 04 2019DISTRIBUTED for Conference of 6/20/2019.
- May 31 2019Brief of respondents Josue Romero, et al. in opposition filed.
- May 31 2019Brief of respondent Provide Commerce, Inc. in opposition filed.
- May 20 2019Letter of May 20, 2019 from counsel from petitioner waiving the 14-day waiting period under Rule 15.5 filed.
- May 15 2019Motion to extend the time to file a response is granted in part and the time is extended to and including May 31, 2019, for all respondents.
- May 10 2019Response to motion from petitioner Brian Perryman filed.
- May 10 2019Reply in support of motion from respondent Provide Commerce, Inc. filed.
- May 10 2019Letter of May 10, 2019, from counsel for respondents Josue Romero, et al. in support of motion for extension of time filed.
- May 09 2019Motion to extend the time to file a response from May 23, 2019 to June 24, 2019, submitted to The Clerk.
- Apr 23 2019DISTRIBUTED for Conference of 5/9/2019.
- Apr 23 2019Response Requested. (Due May 23, 2019)
- Apr 01 2019Waiver of right of respondents Josue Romero, et al. to respond filed.
- Mar 18 2019Waiver of right of respondent Provide Commerce, Inc. to respond filed.
- Mar 15 2019Brief amici curiae of The Attorneys General of Arizona, et al. filed.
- Mar 14 2019Motion for leave to file amicus brief filed by Center for Individual Rights.
- Mar 07 2019Motion to extend the time to file a response is granted and the time is extended to and including April 17, 2019.
- Mar 05 2019Motion to extend the time to file a response from March 18, 2019 to April 17, 2019, submitted to The Clerk.
- Feb 13 2019Petition for a writ of certiorari filed. (Response due March 18, 2019)
- Dec 11 2018Application (18A608) granted by Justice Kagan extending the time to file until February 13, 2019.
- Dec 07 2018Application (18A608) to extend the time to file a petition for a writ of certiorari from January 1, 2019 to February 13, 2019, submitted to Justice Kagan.