Robert Radcliffe v. Experian Information Solutions

FOR PUBLICATION

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

ROBERT RADCLIFFE; CHESTER No. 11-56376

CARTER ; MARIA FALCON ; CLIFTON

C. SEALE, III; ARNOLD LOVELL, JR., D.C. No.

Plaintiffs-Appellants, 8:05-cv-01070-

DOC-MLG

CHRISTY DRIVER ; IVONNE

MARTINEZ; KELLY J. PORTER ; LISA

BRISBANE; BRENDA MELENDEZ;

RALPH MICHAEL PORTER ,

Objectors-Appellants,

and

KATHRYN PIKE ; BERTRAM ROBISON ;

ROBERT RANDALL; JOSE

HERNANDEZ,

Plaintiffs,

WALTER ELLINGWOOD , NANCY

SEGARRA ; MARIA L. BORBON ;

MARCIA GREEN ; JIMMY GREEN ;

THOMAS A. CARDER; GLENDA W.

SCHILLECI; STEVEN C. SINGER ;

NAOMI SANDRES,

Objectors,

v.

EXPERIAN INFORMATION SOLUTIONS

INC.; TRANSUNION , LLC; EQUIFAX

RADCLIFFE V . EXPERIAN INFO . SOLUTIONS

INFORMATION SERVICES LLC,

Defendants-Appellees.

MARIA L. BORBON , No. 11-56387 Objector-Appellant, D.C. No. v. 8:05-cv-01070-

DOC-MLG

JOSE HERNANDEZ; KATHRYN PIKE ;

ROBERT RANDALL; BERTRAM

ROBISON ,

Plaintiffs-Appellees,

and

EXPERIAN INFORMATION SOLUTIONS

INC.; TRANSUNION , LLC; EQUIFAX

INFORMATION SERVICES LLC,

Defendants-Appellees.

TERRI N. WHITE, …

Opinion by Judge GOULD; Concurrence by Judge HADDON.

ORDER

The opinion filed on April 22, 2013, and published at 2013 WL 1715422 , is amended as follows:

At slip opinion page 23, lines 17-19, replace < Conflicted representation provides an independent ground for reversing the settlement and the awards of attorneys’ fees and costs. 5 Cf. Rodriguez II, 688 F.3d at 656-60. > with the following:

The text of footnote 5 is unchanged.

At slip opinion page 23, line 24 to page 24, line 2, replace with the following:

The call number for footnote 6 should be moved to follow < common-fund doctrines, as shown above.

At slip opinion page 24, footnote 6, replace the text of the footnote with the following:

An amended opinion is filed concurrently with this order.

In light of these amendments, any petition for panel rehearing or rehearing en banc shall be filed within fourteen days from the date of this order.

IT IS SO…

concurring:

I join in the decision to reverse approval of the settlement for the reasons clearly stated in Judge Gould’s well-written opin *1169 ion. However, class counsels actions in orchestrating and advocating the disparate incentive award scenario without any concern for, or even recognition of, the obvious conflicts presented underscore, in my opinion, that class counsel were singularly committed to doing whatever was expedient to hold together an offer of settlement that might yield, as it did, an allowance of over $16 million in lawyers’ fees.

Such adherence to self-interest, coupled with the obvious fundamental disregard of responsibilities to all class members— members who had little or no real voice or influence in the process — should not find favor or be rewarded at any level. Although within the discretion of the district court in the first instance, I conclude that class counsel should be disqualified from participation in any fee award ultimately approved by the district court upon resolution of the case on the merits.

. The total fees approved were $16,747,147.68.