Appellate Law

Two tidbits for appeals in class action objector cases: Chavez v. Netflix, Inc.

By Kimberly A. Kralowec

The Court of Appeal's opinion in Chavez v. Netflix, Inc., ___ Cal.App.4th ___ (Apr. 21, 2008) has two tidbits for those of us whose practices intersect appellate law and class action law:

• "[A] class member who timely objects to a settlement has standing to appeal regardless of whether the member formally intervened in the action. (Consumer Cause, Inc. v. Mrs. Gooch?s Natural Food Markets, Inc. (2005) 127 Cal.App.4th 387, 395.)" Slip op. at 8.

• "[A] lodestar enhancement based on 'quality of representation' by definition involves considerations not captured by counsel?s hourly rates. (See Ketchum v. Moses (2001) 24 Cal.4th 1122, 1139 [court can award multiplier for an exceptional quality of representation when representation ?far exceeds the quality . . . that would have been provided by an attorney of comparable skill and experience billing at the hourly rate used in the lodestar calculation?].) Nothing in Ketchum v. Moses requires the trial court to recite an express finding that class counsel?s representation 'far exceed[ed]' the level of representation that comparably skilled attorneys would have provided. (See also In re Marriage of Arceneaux (1990) 51 Cal.3d 1130, 1133 ['[a] judgment or order of a lower court is presumed to be correct on appeal, and all intendments and presumptions are indulged in favor of its correctness'].)" Slip op. at 20.

Full post as published by The Appellate Practitioner on May 05, 2008 (boomark / email).