Only Parties Are Aggrieved, Requiring Intervention or Opting Out, For Standing Purposes.
This case, we predict, will generate a lot of controversy in the class action area, especially as to objectors assuming they as class members had standing to appeal fee orders.
In Hernandez v. Restoration Hardware, Inc., Case No. D067091 (4th Dist., Div. 1 Mar. 14, 2016) (published), a $36.5 million judgment was entered against Restoration Hardware, Inc. (RHI) in a Song-Beverly Act credit case. Class representatives sought $9.1 million in fees for class counsel, 25% of the judgment—a request not contested by RHI. One class member argued that the court should have given notice of the attorney’s fees motion to the class members, but the trial court said “no.” The trial judge awarded the full $9.1 million in fees.
The appellate court affirmed the fees award, agreeing that the objecting class member did not have standing to appeal the award (unlike the actual parties, the class representatives). In doing so, the 4/1 DCA heavily relied on Eggert v. Pacific States S & L Co., 20 Cal.2d 199 (1942), which held that intervention was the right way to go to get party “aggrieved status”—an older case predating a lot of class action principles (especially under FRCP 23).
BLOG OBSERVATION—This case will get lots of press and study in the class action area. If we read this decision correctly, an objector must either intervene or opt out to have standing on attorney’s fees (and maybe other) issues. Stay tuned on this one.
Comments