Chambers

Chambers v. Whirlpool Corp.

Good Law
214 F. Supp. 3d 877·2016 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 140839
United States District Court, Central District of CaliforniaOctober 11, 2016Case No. CV 11-1733 FMO (JCGx)California14,900 words

Opinion

Lead Opinion

Olguin, J.

ORDER RE: MOTION FOR FINAL APPROVAL OF CLASS ACTION SETTLEMENT; MOTION FOR AWARD OF ATTORNEY’S FEES AND EXPENSES

Having reviewed and considered all the briefing filed with respect to the parties’ Joint Motion for Final Approval of Class Action Settlement (Dkt. 254, “Final Approval Motion”) and plaintiffs’ Motion for Award of Attorneys’ Fees and Expenses and for Service Awards for Plaintiffs (Dkt. 218, “Fees Motion”), as well as the oral argument presented during the final approval hearing on August 25, 2016, the court concludes as follows.

*883 INTRODUCTION

On November 9, 2011, plaintiffs filed this class action against Whirlpool Corporation (“Whirlpool”), Sears Holdings Corp., and Sears, Roebuck & Co., Inc. (together with Sears Holdings Corp., “Sears”) (collectively, “defendants”). (See Dkt. 1, Complaint). The Fourth Amended Complaint (Dkt. 98, “4AC”), the operative complaint in this matter, alleges 25 causes of action for violations of: the Magnuson-Moss Warranty Act, 15 U.S.C. §§ 2301 , et seq.; breach of express and implied warranty; violations of the Song-Beverly Act, Cal. Civ. Code §§ 1792 et seq.; strict product liability; failure to warn; unjust enrichment/restitution;…

Sign in to read the full opinion

Create a free account to read the complete opinion text, citation history, and good-law status for this case.