Padraigin Browne v. Groupon, Inc.

concurring:

I concur in the memorandum disposition. I write separately only to say that (1) I believe the district judge has done an admirable job, (2) our memorandum disposition does not reflect on the ultimate issue that the District Court must decide— the fairness, reasonableness, and adequacy of the settlement, (3) some appellate courts may not fully understand how eleventh-hour objectors may interfere with the proper resolution of MDL proceedings, and (4) we risk diminishing the role of lawyers in forging a settlement that is in.the interest of the class, the defendant, and the public by second-guessing a settlement resulting from a mediated settlement. All of that said, the reasoned memorandum disposition is consistent with circuit precedent.

MEMORANDUM **

This dispute arises from the district court’s approval of a class action settlement between Defendants-Appellees Groupon and other merchants (“Groupon”) and a nationwide class of customers (collectively, the “settling parties”). On appeal, Objectors-Appellants Sean Hull and Padraigin Browne contend that notice of the settlement was inadequate, and that the district court made several errors when it approved the settlement and awarded attorneys’ fees to class counsel. Mindful of the high procedural standard that we have set for settlements that, like the one at issue here, occur before certification of the class, we vacate approval and remand to the district court so that it can conduct a “more searching inquiry into the fairness of the negotiated distribution of funds, as well as consider the substantive reasonableness of the attorneys’ fee request in light of the degree of success attained.” In re Bluetooth Headset Products Liab. Litig., 654 F.3d 935 , 938 (9th Cir.2011) (“Bluetooth ”).

As an initial matter, we conclude that the de minimis changes made to the settlement in response to the district court’s initial disapproval did not require sending a new notice to…

FILED

NOT FOR PUBLICATION FEB 19 2015

MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS U.S. COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

In re: GROUPON MARKETING AND No. 13-55118

SALES PRACTICES LITIGATION,

D.C. No. 3:11-md-02238-DMS-

RBB

ANTHONY FERREIRA; HEATHER

KIMEL; BRIAN ZARD; SARAH

GOSLING; ASHLEY CHRISTENSEN; MEMORANDUM*

WILLIAM EIDENMULLER; JASON

COHEN; CARLOS VAZQUEZ; ELI R.

JOHNSON; JULIE BUCKLEY; SARAH

MEHEL; NEVIN BOOTH; BARRIE

ARLISS; JEFF LAWRIE; MICHAEL

MCPHERSON; ERIC TERRELL;

KENNETH HINTON; E.G. JOHNSON;

NICHOLAS SPENCER, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated,

Plaintiffs - Appellees,

v.

PADRAIGIN BROWNE,

Objector - Appellant,

v.

GROUPON, INC.; NORDSTROM INC.;

* This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3. FUN TIME, LLC, DBA Wheel Fun Rentals; YMCA OF METROPOLITAN

WASHINGTON; WHIRLY WEST INC.,

DBA WhirlyBall; SPA BLIX, INC., a Washington corporation; FULL CIRCLE FARMS, INC., a Washington corporation;

CHARLES RIVERBOAT COMPANY,

INC.; BEAUTY &…