Radcliffe v. Experian Info. Solutions, No. 14-56101 (9th Cir. 2016)
Annotate this CaseAppellants and appellees are two teams of named plaintiffs and their respective lawyers who disagree over the proper direction for a consumer class action settlement. In Radcliffe I, the court held that appellees created a conflict of interest by conditioning incentive awards for the class representatives on their approval of the proposed settlement agreement. On remand, appellants moved the district court to disqualify appellees’ counsel from representing the class based on that conflict. The court agreed with the district court that California does not apply a rule of automatic disqualification for conflicts of simultaneous representation in the class action context, and concluded that the district court did not abuse its discretion in determining that appellees’ counsel will adequately represent the class. Accordingly, the court affirmed the district court's denial of the qualification motion.
Court Description: Counsel / Class Actions. The panel affirmed the district court’s order denying a motion to disqualify counsel from representing a plaintiffs’ class in a consumer class action. The court of appeals previously held that certain named plaintiffs and their counsel (appellees) created a conflict of interest by conditioning incentive awards for the class representatives on their approval of a proposed settlement agreement. On remand, other named plaintiffs and their counsel (appellants) moved the district court to disqualify appellees’ counsel from representing the class based on that conflict. Affirming the denial of the disqualification motion, the panel agreed with the district court that California does not apply a rule of automatic disqualification for conflicts of simultaneous representation in a class action context. The RADCLIFFE V. EXPERIAN INFO. SOLS. 3 panel held that the district court did not abuse its discretion in determining that appellees’ counsel would adequately represent the class.
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.