Duane Morris Class Action Review - 2023 - Report - Page 328
transparency.” Id. at 15. For these reasons, the court denied the motion to enforce and
approve the settlement.
G.
Rulings That Reversed Class-Wide Settlement Approval Orders
Objectors and disgruntled litigants often appeal orders that approve class-wide
settlements. In 2022, several appellate rulings entertained those challenges and
reversed orders that had approved class-wide settlements.
The Ninth Circuit did so in 2022 in the most significant of those rulings entitled In Re
Apple Inc. Device Performance Litigation, 50 F.4th 769 (9th Cir. 2022). Plaintiffs filed a
class action alleging that the defendant slowed down iPhones during updates to mask
performance issues. The parties ultimately settled the matter for $310 million. The
district court granted preliminary settlement approval. On appeal, the Ninth Circuit
reversed and remanded the district court’s ruling. The Ninth Circuit determined that the
district court erred because it began with the presumption that the settlement was fair
and reasonable, without conducting a thorough, searching analysis. The Ninth Circuit
also determined that the district court applied the wrong legal standard and ignored
precedent requiring a heightened fairness inquiry prior to class certification. The Ninth
Circuit thereby vacated the district court’s order granting final settlement approval so
that on remand it could evaluate the settlement under the correct standard.
H.
Rulings On Non-Monetary Issues In Class-Wide Settlements
The review and approval process in Rule 23 also covers non-monetary aspects of
class-wide settlements. The types of non-monetary relief negotiated within class-wide
settlements is wide and varied. In 2022, courts confronted various non-monetary relief
provisions that required their analysis of the value of those proposed settlement terms
for fairness to the class.
In Blenko, et al. v. Cabell Huntington Hospital, Inc., Case No. 21-CV-315 (S.D. W. Va.
Nov. 2, 2022), the plaintiffs, a group of non-union retirees, filed a class action alleging
that the defendant terminated their healthcare coverage after promising lifetime
coverage. The parties ultimately settled the matter, and the court granted final
settlement approval. The court determined that $5,694,500 was a fair and reasonable
settlement for the class. The court also ruled that the class-wide settlement provided a
uniform resolution to the common claims regarding the same healthcare benefit plan.
The court noted that the settlement would provide payments of nearly $19,000 to each
of 210 non-union retirees and create a $500,000 “high risk fund” to help cover certain
prescription drug costs not otherwise covered by Medicare Part D plan. As to the “high
risk” fund, the court opined that its terms constituted an innovative method to create
value for the class despite being a new term of the applicable benefits package at issue
in the litigation.
Similarly, in Markson, et al. v. CRST International Inc., Case No. 17-CV-1261 (C.D. Cal.
Oct. 31, 2022), the plaintiffs, a group of truck drivers, filed a class action alleging that
the defendants engaged in anticompetitive arrangements by refusing to hire employees
327
© Duane Morris LLP 2023
Duane Morris Class Action Review – 2023
