In re: HP Inkjet Printer Litigation, No. 11-16097 (9th Cir. 2013)
Annotate this CaseObjectors appealed the district court's orders granting final approval to a class action settlement between HP and a nationwide class of consumers who purchased certain HP inkjet printers between certain dates. Under section 1712 of the Class Action Fairness Act, 28 U.S.C. 1712(a)-(c), a district court could not award attorneys' fees to class counsel that were "attributable to" an award of coupons without first considering the redemption value of the coupons. A district court could, however, award lodestar fees to compensate class counsel for any non-coupon relief they obtained, such as injunctive relief. Because the attorneys' fees award in this case violated section 1712, the court reversed and remanded to the district court for further proceedings.
Court Description: Class Action Fairness Act / Attorneys’ Fees. The panel reversed the district court’s orders granting final approval to a class action settlement between Hewlett- Packard Company and a nationwide class of consumers who purchased certain HP inkjet printers, and awarding attorneys’ fees. The panel held that the attorneys’ fee award to class counsel violated the Class Action Fairness Act (“CAFA”), and specifically 28 U.S.C. § 1712(a)-(c), which governs the calculation of attorneys’ fees in class action cases containing a coupon component. The panel held that when a settlement provides for coupon relief, either in whole or in part, any attorneys’ fee that is “attributable to the award of coupons” must be calculated using the redemption value of the coupons. The panel reversed and remanded, because the district court awarded fees that were “attributable to” the coupon relief, but failed to first calculate the redemption value of those coupons. Judge Berzon dissented, and would hold that there was no violation of § 1712 of CAFA, where the district court did not award a contingency fee calculated as a percentage of the purported value of the total class recovery, but instead chose to award a lodestar fee, calculated on the basis of hours worked and rates charged, carefully limited by a fair estimate of the amount of the benefit received by the class. Judge Berzon would affirm the district court because the fee award was consistent with CAFA.
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.