This is a detailed Order from Judge Tennille approving settlement of a class action.
Class Actions
MJM Investigations, Inc. v. Microsoft Corp., December 13, 2004 (Tennille)(unpublished)
The Court approved an award of attorneys’ fees of $4 million to class counsel. It found the fees to be reasonable under the percentage of fund approach, the lodestar-multiplier approach, and the fee factors considered in North Carolina cases based on Rule 1.5 of the North Carolina Rules of Professional Conduct.
Rankin v. Microsoft Corp., June 10, 2004 (Tennille)(unpublished)
This Motion to Intervene before the Court in this class action case against Microsoft was filed not by a potential party, but by a group of lawyers seeking to share in any fee award to plaintiff’s counsel. The Court refused to allow the lawyers to intervene, because lawyers who have never been counsel of record…
MJM Investigations, Inc. v. Microsoft Corp., August 2, 2004 (Tennille)(unpublished)
This is an unpublished order approving settlement of a class action against Microsoft Corporation.
Blitz v. Agean, Inc., 2007 NCBC 21 (N.C. Super. June 25, 2007)(Diaz)
This was the second effort of this plaintiff to secure class certification of a claim under the Federal Telephone Consumer Protection Act. The Court discussed the requirements for class certification, and found that certification should be denied. The individualized inquiries that would be necessary to determine whether the faxed advertisements at issue were unsolicited, and…
Moody v. Sears, Roebuck and Co., 2007 NCBC 13 (N.C. Super. May 7, 2007)(Tennille)(reversed by the North Carolina Court of Appeals)
The Court considered the dismissal of a North Carolina class action following the Illinois settlement of a nationwide class action. Court approval was required, even though the class had never been certified, but the plaintiff had attempted to dismiss its case following the settlement without leave of Court.
The Business Court had tentatively agreed to…
Teague v. Bayer AG, 2007 NCBC 12 (N.C. Super. Ct. May 7, 2007)(Tennille)
The Court, again, considered the issue of indirect purchaser standing. It reiterated the factors it looks to in determining whether there is such standing, as articulated in its opinion in Crouch v. Crompton Corp.
Crouch had involved one product, tires, but this case involved ethylene propylene diene monomer, which the Court observed might be used…
Thai Holding of Charlotte, Inc. v. Archer Daniels Midland Co., 2007 NCBC 11 (N.C. Super. May 7, 2007)(Tennille)
A multi-state class action was settled in New Mexico. As a result, funds were to made available to North Carolina for a cy pres distribution to "public and/or non-profit entities that use MSG and Nucleotides and/or products that use MSG or Nucleotides." There was no specification, however, of what entities should receive the funds, or…
Blitz v. Xpress Image, Inc., 2006 NCBC 10 (N.C. Super. Ct. Aug. 23, 2006, amended Aug. 25, 2006)(Diaz)
Plaintiff sought damages, as the representative of a class, for violation of the Federal Telephone Consumer Protection Act. The Court found that individualized issues would predominate, and that class certification therefore was not appropriate. The individual issues were whether any class member had given the defendant "express permission" to send the advertisement, and whether any…
Coker v. DaimlerChrysler Corp., 2004 NCBC 1 (N.C. Super. Ct. Jan. 6, 2004)(Tennille), aff’d, 172 N.C. App. 386, 617 S.E.2d 306 (2005), aff’d per curiam, 360 N.C. 398, 627 S.E.2d 461 (2006)
In this class action against an automobile manufacturer, plaintiffs claimed that the manufacturer had committed fraud by advertising the safety of its vehicles even though they did not have a brake shift interlock system. Plaintiff sought damages — even though they had suffered no injury as yet — and an injunction ordering a recall of…