Skip to content

Menu

LexBlog, Inc. logo
NetworkSub-MenuBrowse by SubjectBrowse by PublisherJoin the NetworkGet StartedSubscribeSupport
Contact Us
Search
Close

Northern District of California adopts guidance for class action settlements

By Lucia Nale, Debra Bogo-Ernst, Kevin Ranlett & Elaine Liu on January 2, 2019
Email this postTweet this postLike this postShare this post on LinkedIn

On November 1, 2018, the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California published updated procedural guidance for class action settlements (the “Guidance”). While the court made changes to align its rules with the December 1, 2018 amendments to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23, the court also sought to provide better information for parties and courts in negotiating and approving settlements. It became the first federal district court to require parties to class action settlements to publicly disclose a broad range of detailed settlement information. The following is an overview of key changes.

Preliminary Approval

The Guidance details extensive upfront disclosure requirements for parties seeking preliminary approval for a proposed settlement, including, e.g.:

  • Settlement fund and allocation plan to class members;
  • How the settlement differs from the allegations in the complaint, both in terms of the class definitions and the scope of the released claims as compared to the alleged claims;
  • Settlement administrator selection process and administrative costs;
  • Class notice and instructions for opt-outs or objections;
  • Attorneys’ fees, including lodestar calculation;
  • Incentive awards;
  • Cy pres recipients and their potential conflicts; and
  • Data on at least one of class counsel’s “past comparable class settlements” in terms of similar clients, claims, and/or issues.

Final Approval

The Guidance mandates three key categories of information to be submitted for parties to obtain final approval of a class settlement, including:

  • Detailed support for attorneys’ fees—including lodestar information, even when the attorneys’ request is based on a percentage of the settlement fund;
  • Class members’ responses—e.g., claims, undeliverable notices, and opt-outs; and
  • Justification for incentive awards—g., evidence of awardees’ involvement in the case.

Post-Distribution Accounting

Parties must file a “Post-Distribution Accounting” and post it to a website maintained by the claims administrator or class counsel within 21 days of the distribution of settlement funds and attorneys’ fees. Courts then have the option of holding a hearing to ensure compliance with rules.

Details to be disclosed in an “easy-to-read chart that allows for quick comparisons with other cases” include:

  • For monetary relief, data such as total settlement fund, number of notices, claims rate, average, median, largest, and smallest recovery per claimant, amounts distributed to each cy pres recipient, and attorneys’ fees; and
  • For non-monetary relief, data such as the number of class members availing themselves of this relief and a discussion of the benefit conferred on the class.
Photo of Lucia Nale Lucia Nale

Lucia Nale is a litigation partner in our Chicago office, focusing on general civil litigation, with a particular emphasis on the defense of financial institutions in the consumer financial services industry.

Lucia is co-chair of the firm’s Consumer Class Action practice and frequently…

Lucia Nale is a litigation partner in our Chicago office, focusing on general civil litigation, with a particular emphasis on the defense of financial institutions in the consumer financial services industry.

Lucia is co-chair of the firm’s Consumer Class Action practice and frequently provides compliance advice and litigation risk analysis to industry clients. She represents a number of prominent financial institutions, including national banks, federal savings banks, state-chartered banks, mortgage lenders, investment advisors and automobile finance companies, and serves as national consumer class action defense counsel for particular clients.

Read Lucia’s full bio.

Read more about Lucia NaleEmail
Show more Show less
Photo of Debra Bogo-Ernst Debra Bogo-Ernst
Read more about Debra Bogo-ErnstEmail
Photo of Kevin Ranlett Kevin Ranlett

Kevin Ranlett is a partner in the firm’s Supreme Court & Appellate and Consumer Litigation & Class Actions practices. He has defended businesses in numerous complex class and representative actions in state and federal courts across the country and in proceedings before the…

Kevin Ranlett is a partner in the firm’s Supreme Court & Appellate and Consumer Litigation & Class Actions practices. He has defended businesses in numerous complex class and representative actions in state and federal courts across the country and in proceedings before the American Arbitration Association. In addition to drafting critical trial motions, Kevin has a substantial appellate practice. He has written merits or amicus briefs in appeals involving issues of class certification, arbitration, securities law, federal preemption, the Alien Tort Statute, punitive damages, and employment discrimination. He also advises businesses in drafting and enforcing consumer and employee arbitration agreements.

Read Kevin’s full bio.

Read more about Kevin RanlettEmail
Show more Show less
  • Posted in:
    Class Action & Mass Torts
  • Blog:
    Class Defense Blog
  • Organization:
    Mayer Brown
  • Article: View Original Source

Call us at 1-800-913-0988 or email sales@lexblog.com.

Facebook LinkedIn Twitter RSS
  • About LexBlog
  • The Field We Built
  • Our Beliefs
  • Our Team
  • Contact LexBlog
  • Disclaimer
  • Editorial Policy
  • Terms of Service
  • Get Started
  • Publishing Solutions
  • Compass
  • Submit a Request
  • Support Center
  • System Status
Copyright © 2026, LexBlog, Inc. All Rights Reserved.
Law blog design & platform by LexBlog LexBlog Logo