Case Law Keil v. Lopez

Keil v. Lopez

Document Cited Authorities (33) Cited in (78) Related (2)

Timothy M. Cronin, Ryan A. Keane, THE SIMON LAW FIRM, Suite 1700, 800 Market Street, Saint Louis, MO 63101, for Alexia Keil, Plaintiff-Appellee.

John G. Simon, THE SIMON LAW FIRM, Suite 1700, 800 Market Street, Saint Louis, MO 63101, Don Manley Downing, Gretchen Garrison, GRAY & RITTER, Eighth Floor, 701 Market Street, Saint Louis, MO 63101-0000, for Plaintiffs-Appellees.

Stephen Frank Gaunt, STEELMAN & GAUNT 901 Pine Street, P.O. Box 1257, Rolla, MO 65402, Scott A. Kamber, KAMBERLAW, LLC, 11th Floor 142 57th Street, New York, NY 10019, Deborah Kravitz, KAMBERLAW, LLP, Suite 111, 401 Center Street, Healdsburg, CA 95448, David Parisi, PARISI & HAVENS, Suite 100, 212 Marine Street, Santa Monica, CA 90405, Jeremy Reade Wilson, COREA FIRM, 2028 Sarrington Street, Dallas, TX 75207, for Nick Hutchison, Plaintiff-Appellee.

Stephen Frank Gaunt, David L. Steelman, STEELMAN & GAUNT, 901 Pine Street, P.O. Box 1257, Rolla, MO 65402, David Parisi, PARISI & HAVENS, Suite 100, 212 Marine Street, Santa Monica, CA 90405, for Jason Davis, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff-Appellee.

Sean K. Cronin, DONOVAN & ROSE, 201 S. Illinois Street, Belleville, IL 62220, Timothy M. Cronin, Ryan A. Keane, THE SIMON LAW FIRM, Suite 1700, 800 Market Street, Saint Louis, MO 63101, for Rachael D. Stone, Plaintiff-Appellee.

Joshua Eggnatz, EGGNATZ LAW FIRM, Suite 413 5400 S. University Drive, Davie, FL 33328, David B. Helms, GERMAN & MAY, Suite 1060, 8000 Maryland Avenue, Clayton, MO 63105, Sarah A. Milunski, Richard B. Walsh, Jr., LEWIS & RICE, Suite 2500, 600 Washington Avenue, Saint Louis, MO 63101, Michael Reese, REESE LLP, 16th Floor 100 W. 93rd Street, New York, NY 10001, Howard Weil Rubinstein, LAW OFFICES OF HOWARD W. RUBINSTEIN, P.A., Suite 4C, 1615 Forum Place, West Palm Beach, FL 33401, for Maja Mackenzie, Plaintiff-Appellee.

Scott Bursor, Neal J. Deckant, Frederick John Klorczyk, Yitzchak Kopel, Joseph Ignatius Marchese, BURSOR & FISHER, 888 Seventh Avenue, New York, NY 10019, for Brian Andacky, Melissa Baggett, Plaintiffs-Appellees.

Adam R. Gonnelli, Antonio Vozzolo, FARUQI & FARUQI, 26th Floor, 685 Third Avenue, New York, NY 10017, James E. Miller, Laurie Rubinow, SHEPHERD & FINKELMAN, 65 Main Street Chester, CT 06412, for David Delre, Plaintiff-Appellee.

Brian Penny, GOLDMAN & EHRLICH, 19 S. LaSalle Street, Chicago, IL 60603, for Christopher Renna, Plaintiff-Appellee.

Patrick A. Klingman, KLINGMAN LAW, LLC, Suite 510, 196 Trumbull Street, Hartford, CT 06103, for Kimberly Lemon and Christopher Renna, Plaintiffs-Appellees.

Todd D. Carpenter, CARPENTER LAW GROUP, 402 W. Broadway, San Diego, CA 92101, Edwin J. Kilpela, Jr., CARLSON & LYNCH, Suite 210, 115 Federal Street, Pittsburgh, PA 15212, James Richard Patterson, PATTERSON LAW GROUP, 29th Floor, 402 West Broadway, San Diego, CA 92101, for Joshua Teperson, Plaintiff-Appellee.

Sara Avila, Gillian L. Wade, MILSTEIN & ADELMAN, 2800 Donald Douglas Loop North, Santa Monica, CA 90405, Allison Rachel Willett, WILLETT & WILLETT, Suite 1006, 9701 Wilshire Boulevard, Beverly Hills, CA 90212, for Jonathon Fisher, Plaintiff-Appellee.

Matthew Hall Armstrong, ARMSTRONG LAW FIRM, 8816 Manchester Road, Brentwood, MO 63144, for Cindi Inman, Plaintiff-Appellee.

Daniel Frech, Stuart Scott, SPANGENBERG & SHIBLEY, Suite 1700, 1001 Lakeside Avenue, E. Cleveland, OH 44114, Andrea Gold, Jonathan K. Tycko, TYCKO & ZAVAREEI, Suite 1000, 1828 L Street, N.W., Washington, DC 20036, for Beth Cox, Plaintiff-Appellee.

Daniel W. Luginbill, WILSON & LUGINBILL, P.O. Box 1150, 3056 Railroad Avenue, Bamberg, SC 29003, Robert V. Phillips, MCGOWAN & HOOD, 1539 Healthcare Drive, Rock Hill, SC 29732, for Victoria Lyman, Plaintiff-Appellee.

Donald C. Douglas, Jr., LAW OFFICE OF DONALD C. DOUGLAS, JR., Suite B, 1070 West Causeway Approach, Mandeville, LA 70471, Robert G. Harvey, Jr., LAW OFFICE OF TAMARA KLUGER JACOBSON, LLC, 600 N. Carrollton Avenue, New Orleans, LA 70119, for Stephanie Douglas, Plaintiff-Appellee.

Edward F. Haber, SHAPIRO & HABER, 53 State Street, Boston, MA 02109, Noah Schubert, SCHUBERT & JONCKHEER, Suite 1650, Three Embarcadero Center, San Francisco, CA 94111, for Sarah Jacobs, on behalf of herself and others similarly situated Plaintiff-Appellee.

Gerard T. Carmody, CARMODY & MACDONALD, Suite 1800, 120 S. Central Avenue, Saint Louis, MO 63105-0000, Aileen M. Fair, Adeel Abdullah Mangi, Steven A. Zalesin, PATTERSON & BELKNAP, 1133 Avenue of the Americas, New York, NY 10036-6710, for Blue Buffalo Company, Ltd., Defendant-Appellee.

Christopher Andres Bandas, Robert William Clore, BANDAS LAW FIRM, Suite 1020, 500 N. Shoreline Boulevard, Corpus Christi, TX 78401, Timothy Belz, OTTSEN & LEGGAT, The Midvale Building, 112 S. Hanley, Saint Louis, MO 63105-3418, for Jennifer Houser, Objector, and Paul Lopez, Objector-Appellant.

George Willard Cochran, Jr., LAW OFFICE OF GEORGE W. COCHRAN, 1385 Russell Drive, Streetsboro, OH 44241, Pamela McCoy, Pro Se, 6801 Garrett Road, Ravenna, OH 44266, for Pamela McCoy, Objector-Appellant.

Caroline Nadola, Pro Se, 1421 Washington Place, Chesterbrook, PA 19087.

Gary W. Sibley, Pro Se, SIBLEY FIRM, Suite 550, 2711 N. Haskell Avenue, Dallas, TX 75204.

Before GRUENDER, MURPHY, and KELLY, Circuit Judges.

GRUENDER, Circuit Judge.

Paul Lopez, Pamela McCoy, Caroline Nadola, and Gary Sibley ("objectors") appeal the district court's1 orders approving a class action settlement and awarding attorneys' fees. They raise various objections regarding the adequacy of the district court's explanation, the fairness of the settlement, the reasonableness of the attorneys' fees, and the district court's scheduling orders. For the following reasons, we affirm.

I. BACKGROUND

Blue Buffalo Company, Ltd. ("Blue Buffalo") is a manufacturer of pet foods. In January 2015, plaintiffs brought this class action challenging Blue Buffalo's representations about the ingredients in its pet foods. Plaintiffs alleged that Blue Buffalo broke its "True Blue Promise" that its products contained no chicken or poultry by-product meals. As a result, they asserted (1) violations of the Magnuson-Moss Warranty Act ("MMWA"); (2) breach of express and implied warranties; (3) unjust enrichment; and (4) violations of the consumer protection acts of eight states: Missouri, New York, California, New Jersey, Illinois, Florida, Ohio, and Massachusetts. The MMWA, warranty, and unjust-enrichment claims were brought on behalf of a proposed nationwide class, whereas the consumer protection claims were brought on behalf of eight proposed subclasses. Class counsel estimated that the potential class size consisted of 3.5 million households.

Initially, Blue Buffalo denied all of the material allegations. However, Blue Buffalo subsequently discovered that some of its suppliers had sent mislabeled ingredients to manufacturing facilities that produced certain Blue Buffalo products. Blue Buffalo continued to deny liability, but it filed a third-party complaint against two of its suppliers in June 2015, seeking indemnification and contribution in the event it was found liable.

In October 2015, class counsel and Blue Buffalo began to engage in settlement talks with a mediator. Less than two months later, the parties reached a settlement agreement. According to the settlement agreement, Blue Buffalo agreed to pay $32 million into a settlement fund. From this amount, class counsel would request $8 million for attorneys' fees and expenses, the settlement administrator would request $1.4 million to cover administrative costs, and the remaining $22.6 million would be available to pay class members. To receive a portion of this amount, class members would have two options. Under option 1, class members without pet-food receipts would receive $5 for every $50 of purchases they made, and they could claim up to $100 of eligible purchases. Under option 2, class...

5 cases
Document | U.S. Court of Appeals — Eleventh Circuit – 2020
Johnson v. NPAS Solutions, LLC
"...that they are adequately documented and supported is essential for the protection of the rights of class members."); Keil v. Lopez , 862 F.3d 685, 705 (8th Cir. 2017) (raising similar concerns). Second, a plain-language reading of Rule 23(h) ensures that the district court is presented with..."
Document | U.S. Court of Appeals — Tenth Circuit – 2024
Chieftain Royalty Co. v. SM Energy Co.
"...cases relied on for this understanding did not "consider[ ] whether the Rule 23(h) violations at issue were harmless." Keil v. Lopez, 862 F.3d 685, 705 (8th Cir. 2017) (discussing Mercury and Redman). And rather than determining that the error prejudiced class members' substantial rights in..."
Document | U.S. District Court — Northern District of Iowa – 2018
Opheim v. Standard Ins. Co.
"...Inc. , 688 F.3d 958, 966 & n.4 (8th Cir. 2012) (approving reliance on Johnson factors when using lodestar method).Keil v. Lopez , 862 F.3d 685, 701 (8th Cir. 2017). I will consider these factors, in a separate ruling, after Opheim submits an appropriate fee application and Standard has had ..."
Document | U.S. Court of Appeals — Eighth Circuit – 2017
Combs v. Cordish Cos.
"... ... A district court abuses its discretion if its judgment "was based on clearly erroneous factual findings or erroneous legal conclusions." Lopez v. United States , 790 F.3d 867, 871 (8th Cir. 2015) (quoting Chapa v. United States , 497 F.3d 883, 887 (8th Cir. 2007) ). Judicial estoppel is ... "
Document | U.S. District Court — District of Minnesota – 2018
Harris v. Chipotle Mexican Grill, Inc.
"...basis, versus payment on an hourly basis, is one of the Johnson factors that weighs in favor of a fee award. See Keil v. Lopez, 862 F.3d 685, 703 (8th Cir. 2017) (affirming a fee award, noting that the contingency fee factor weighed in favor of awarding the requested fees). The Court apprec..."

Try vLex and Vincent AI for free

Start a free trial
1 books and journal articles
Document | Antitrust Law Developments (Ninth Edition) - Volume I – 2022
Private Antitrust Suits
"...Litig., 895 F.3d 597, 617 (9th Cir. 2018). 925. See Vasalle v. Midland Funding LLC, 708 F.3d 747, 754 (6th Cir. 2013); Keil v. Lopez, 862 F.3d 685, 693 (8th Cir. 2017); Melito v. Experian Mktg. Sols., 923 F.3d 85, 90 n.3 (2d Cir. 2019), cert. denied sub nom. Bowes v. Melito, 140 S. Ct. 677 ..."

Try vLex and Vincent AI for free

Start a free trial
2 firm's commentaries
Document | JD Supra United States – 2023
A Practical Guide to the Undistributed Settlement Funds Problem and the Cy Pres Solution
"...settlement checks go uncashed. Indeed, “a claim rate as low as 3 percent is hardly unusual in consumer class actions[.]” Keil v. Lopez, 862 F.3d 685, 697 (8th Cir. 2017). Kroll Settlement Administration estimates that about 45 percent of checks for less than $20.00 and about 70 percent of c..."
Document | JD Supra United States – 2019
Speak of the Devil… Class Certified in “Slack-Fill” Case for the First Time
"...on these cases. Perhaps we’ll just be a bit more careful next time we speak of the Devil. Daniel Friedman Jonah Knobler Keil v. Lopez, 862 F.3d 685, 694 (8th Cir. 2017); see also see Red Barn Motors, Inc. v. Nextgear Capital, Inc., 915 F.3d 1098, 1101-02 (7th Cir. 2019) (vacating conclusory..."

Try vLex and Vincent AI for free

Start a free trial

Experience vLex's unparalleled legal AI

Access millions of documents and let Vincent AI power your research, drafting, and document analysis — all in one platform.

Start a free trial

Start Your 3-day Free Trial of vLex and Vincent AI, Your Precision-Engineered Legal Assistant

  • Access comprehensive legal content with no limitations across vLex's unparalleled global legal database

  • Build stronger arguments with verified citations and CERT citator that tracks case history and precedential strength

  • Transform your legal research from hours to minutes with Vincent AI's intelligent search and analysis capabilities

  • Elevate your practice by focusing your expertise where it matters most while Vincent handles the heavy lifting

vLex
1 books and journal articles
Document | Antitrust Law Developments (Ninth Edition) - Volume I – 2022
Private Antitrust Suits
"...Litig., 895 F.3d 597, 617 (9th Cir. 2018). 925. See Vasalle v. Midland Funding LLC, 708 F.3d 747, 754 (6th Cir. 2013); Keil v. Lopez, 862 F.3d 685, 693 (8th Cir. 2017); Melito v. Experian Mktg. Sols., 923 F.3d 85, 90 n.3 (2d Cir. 2019), cert. denied sub nom. Bowes v. Melito, 140 S. Ct. 677 ..."

Try vLex and Vincent AI for free

Start a free trial

Start Your 3-day Free Trial of vLex and Vincent AI, Your Precision-Engineered Legal Assistant

  • Access comprehensive legal content with no limitations across vLex's unparalleled global legal database

  • Build stronger arguments with verified citations and CERT citator that tracks case history and precedential strength

  • Transform your legal research from hours to minutes with Vincent AI's intelligent search and analysis capabilities

  • Elevate your practice by focusing your expertise where it matters most while Vincent handles the heavy lifting

vLex
5 cases
Document | U.S. Court of Appeals — Eleventh Circuit – 2020
Johnson v. NPAS Solutions, LLC
"...that they are adequately documented and supported is essential for the protection of the rights of class members."); Keil v. Lopez , 862 F.3d 685, 705 (8th Cir. 2017) (raising similar concerns). Second, a plain-language reading of Rule 23(h) ensures that the district court is presented with..."
Document | U.S. Court of Appeals — Tenth Circuit – 2024
Chieftain Royalty Co. v. SM Energy Co.
"...cases relied on for this understanding did not "consider[ ] whether the Rule 23(h) violations at issue were harmless." Keil v. Lopez, 862 F.3d 685, 705 (8th Cir. 2017) (discussing Mercury and Redman). And rather than determining that the error prejudiced class members' substantial rights in..."
Document | U.S. District Court — Northern District of Iowa – 2018
Opheim v. Standard Ins. Co.
"...Inc. , 688 F.3d 958, 966 & n.4 (8th Cir. 2012) (approving reliance on Johnson factors when using lodestar method).Keil v. Lopez , 862 F.3d 685, 701 (8th Cir. 2017). I will consider these factors, in a separate ruling, after Opheim submits an appropriate fee application and Standard has had ..."
Document | U.S. Court of Appeals — Eighth Circuit – 2017
Combs v. Cordish Cos.
"... ... A district court abuses its discretion if its judgment "was based on clearly erroneous factual findings or erroneous legal conclusions." Lopez v. United States , 790 F.3d 867, 871 (8th Cir. 2015) (quoting Chapa v. United States , 497 F.3d 883, 887 (8th Cir. 2007) ). Judicial estoppel is ... "
Document | U.S. District Court — District of Minnesota – 2018
Harris v. Chipotle Mexican Grill, Inc.
"...basis, versus payment on an hourly basis, is one of the Johnson factors that weighs in favor of a fee award. See Keil v. Lopez, 862 F.3d 685, 703 (8th Cir. 2017) (affirming a fee award, noting that the contingency fee factor weighed in favor of awarding the requested fees). The Court apprec..."

Try vLex and Vincent AI for free

Start a free trial

Start Your 3-day Free Trial of vLex and Vincent AI, Your Precision-Engineered Legal Assistant

  • Access comprehensive legal content with no limitations across vLex's unparalleled global legal database

  • Build stronger arguments with verified citations and CERT citator that tracks case history and precedential strength

  • Transform your legal research from hours to minutes with Vincent AI's intelligent search and analysis capabilities

  • Elevate your practice by focusing your expertise where it matters most while Vincent handles the heavy lifting

vLex

Start Your 3-day Free Trial of vLex and Vincent AI, Your Precision-Engineered Legal Assistant

  • Access comprehensive legal content with no limitations across vLex's unparalleled global legal database

  • Build stronger arguments with verified citations and CERT citator that tracks case history and precedential strength

  • Transform your legal research from hours to minutes with Vincent AI's intelligent search and analysis capabilities

  • Elevate your practice by focusing your expertise where it matters most while Vincent handles the heavy lifting

vLex
2 firm's commentaries
Document | JD Supra United States – 2023
A Practical Guide to the Undistributed Settlement Funds Problem and the Cy Pres Solution
"...settlement checks go uncashed. Indeed, “a claim rate as low as 3 percent is hardly unusual in consumer class actions[.]” Keil v. Lopez, 862 F.3d 685, 697 (8th Cir. 2017). Kroll Settlement Administration estimates that about 45 percent of checks for less than $20.00 and about 70 percent of c..."
Document | JD Supra United States – 2019
Speak of the Devil… Class Certified in “Slack-Fill” Case for the First Time
"...on these cases. Perhaps we’ll just be a bit more careful next time we speak of the Devil. Daniel Friedman Jonah Knobler Keil v. Lopez, 862 F.3d 685, 694 (8th Cir. 2017); see also see Red Barn Motors, Inc. v. Nextgear Capital, Inc., 915 F.3d 1098, 1101-02 (7th Cir. 2019) (vacating conclusory..."

Try vLex and Vincent AI for free

Start a free trial