Federal Court Agrees with Texas Brief and Rejects Proposed Class Action Settlement for Benefiting Lawyers Instead of Class Members
Published 1:17 pm Wednesday, August 17, 2016
Special to The Leader
AUSTIN – A federal district court in California, last Wednesday, rejected the proposed settlement of a class action lawsuit against Similasan Corporation (Allen v. Similasan Corp., Case N. 12-cv-376-BAS-JLB, S.D. Cal.). Among other claims, the company was accused of engaging in false and deceptive labeling of their homeopathic products. A proposed settlement class counsel and Similasan presented to the court would have only paid class attorneys and two plaintiffs, while affected consumers would not receive any monetary compensation and would waive their claims for compensation.
Standing up for their consumers, Arizona, Texas, and 6 other state attorneys general filed a brief on July 28, urging the court to reject the settlement as unfair, unreasonable, and inadequate for consumers. In the brief, the state attorneys general explained that “the Proposed Settlement is not fair, reasonable, and adequate…. Only the Defendant, class counsel, and the named plaintiffs receive particularized value from the deal, which fails to protect the absent class members.”
In last week’s order, the Court noted the attorneys general brief and cited heavily from it in reaching the conclusion that the settlement should be rejected. Quoting the attorneys general, the Court recognized that, “all class members are giving up all of their non-personal injury monetary claims against Defendant without receiving any compensation different from the public at large.”
Following the release of the opinion, Texas Attorney General Ken Paxton made the following statement: “Class actions should be a means to make injured persons whole, not a tool to enrich lawyers at the expense of the very injured persons they claim to represent.”