In Re Bluetooth Headset Products Liability

How courts have described this case

Verbatim parenthetical descriptions written by other courts when citing this decision. Ranked by citation-network relevance.

• holding that participation of a mediator is not dispositive, but is “a factor in favor of a finding of non-collusiveness”
• recognizing that courts have discretion to choose either method as a primary basis for calculation, provided they exercise their discretion “so as to achieve a reasonable result”
• holding that district courts should “award only that amount of fees that is reasonable in relation to the results obtained,” even where counting all hours reasonably spent would produce a larger fees award
• holding that when parties seek approval of a settlement negotiated 17 prior to formal class certification, “there is an even greater potential for a breach of 18 fiduciary duty owed the class during settlement”
• noting that upon remand the district court may uphold the settlement notwithstanding the presence of all three of the Bluetooth warning signs
• noting that a percentage-of-recovery fee award is calculated by taking a percentage of the “common fund for the benefit of the entire class ” (emphasis added)

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).