Praise from the Courts

Consumer Protection Cases

On January 9, 2009 in awarding attorney’s fees to Class Counsel, U.S. District Judge John C. Coughenour found that Keller Rohrback L.L.P. has “substantial experience in consumer class action litigation.” Pelletz v. Weyerhaeuser Co., 592 F. Supp. 2d 1322, 1329 (W.D. Wash. 2009).

On January 24, 2008, U.S. District Judge Robert S. Lasnik made the following comments in granting final approval to a class action settlement: “I will sign the proposed findings and conclusions and the final approval order and judgment with one exception, Mr. Griffin. I’ve just stricken on page 5 of your proposed findings and conclusions. I agree that the amount of $108,000 which is 25 percent of the settlement fund is reasonable. I don’t want to say that it’s the benchmark percentage for such fee awards, because, for me, I’ll always look at case law and determine what’s appropriate under all the circumstances. Twenty-five percent is certainly something that has been talked about as a benchmark, but I don’t want someone to later on say to me: You’ve already adopted that as your benchmark. So I’ve just stricken those words. Not that I disagree with them, but I don’t want to memorialize them quite that way. But, with that one exception, I have signed the proposed findings and conclusions and the final approval order and judgment, and I do believe that this is a successful -- sometimes people ask me what is the whole purpose behind class action, because it seems that the victims get virtually nothing, the attorneys get everything, and society hasn’t been advanced much in the process. But I think this is an example of how [a] class action works, and I was very pleased to see it come to this conclusion. So thank you very much (Emphasis added).” Kavu, Inc. v. Omnipak Corp., No. 06-109RSL.

On October 27, 2005, when granting final approval of a class settlement, Judge John Erlick of the King County Superior Court stated, “I’m sure counsel is well aware that one of the greatest criticisms of class actions is that the putitive members receive so little, and the attorneys receive it all, and the recovery pales compared to the claimed damages to the plaintiffs. And in this case the settlement that was reached between the parties strikes me, in the context of my familiarity with other class actions, as extremely fair and reasonable by both sides. So I want to acknowledge counsel for working that out, and the amount of recovery, I think, given all the issues involved, the risk of litigation, the length of time it could take to litigate these matters, and the increasing costs both in terms of hard costs of all the trace fees, this was a very appropriate and fair resolution. So with respect to the recovery to the class members, the court approves the proposed distributions to the class members who have filed for claims….” Roche v. Washington Mutual Bank, No. 00-2-31212-1SEA.

In Hansen v. Ticket Track, Inc., 213 F.R.D. 412, 416 (W.D. Wash. 2003), U.S. District Judge Marsha J. Pechman appointed Keller Rohrback L.L.P. class counsel finding that the “firm is experienced in class action litigation and management.”

In Mortimore v. Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation, 197 F.R.D. 432, 437 (W.D. Wash. 2000), Judge Coughenour appointed Keller Rohrback L.L.P. class counsel finding that it is “well qualified to represent the class in this case.”

On September 20, 1999, U.S. District Judge William L. Dwyer made the following comments about the settlement agreement in Getty v. Harmon, No. 98-0178: “Despite substantial obstacles to recovery, Keller Rohrback was willing to undertake the significant risks presented by this case. After a year and a half of intensive litigation, including extensive discovery, motion practice, and mediation, Class Counsel achieved real and substantial benefits for members of the Class. Keller Rohrback’s extensive prior experience in complex class action securities litigation and with Ponzi investment schemes enabled the Class to analyze and achieve this excellent result.”