• Abstract and Figures
• Public Full-text

Electronically Filed Kahalah A. Clay Circuit Clerk CARMEN GLENN 19L0846 St. Clair County CIRCUIT COURT FOR THE 20TH JUDICIAL CIRCUIT 6/22/2020 10:42 AM COUNTY OF ST. CLAIR, STATE OF ILLINOIS 9555049 LISA MOORE, individually and on behalf of ) all others similarly situated, ) ) Plaintiff, ) v. ) No. 19-L-0846 ) KIMBERLY-CLARK WORLDWIDE, INC., ) ) Defendant. ) MOTION FOR FINAL APPROVAL OF CLASS ACTION SETTLEMENT AND MEMORANDUM IN SUPPORT THEREOF Plaintiff Lisa Moore (“Plaintiff”), by and through Class Counsel,1 respectfully submits this memorandum in support of Plaintiff’s Motion for Final Approval of Class Action Settlement. The Settlement Agreement (hereafter, “Settlement”) and its exhibits are attached as Exhibit 1 to the concurrently filed Declaration of Scott A. Bursor In Support Of Plaintiff’s Application For Attorneys’ Fees, Costs, And Class Service Awards (“Bursor Decl.”). On April 21, 2020, this Court granted preliminary approval to the parties’ Settlement Agreement and ordered that the Settlement Administrator execute the approved Notice Plan. See Order Granting Preliminarily Approval of Class Action Settlement. The tremendous response from Class Members confirms that the Settlement is fair and reasonable and provides outstanding relief to the Class. Although the claims deadline is not until August 18, 2020, the Claims Administrator estimates that upon receipt of 228,311 Claims, the entire $7,000,000 Benefit Fund will be exhausted. See Exhibit MFA1, the June 22, 2020 Decl. of Jeanne C. 1 All capitalized terms not otherwise defined herein shall have the same definitions as set out in the Settlement Agreement. Page 1 of 23 Case No: 19-L-0846 Finegan (“Finegan Decl.”) ¶ 31. The Settlement Administrator has received 185,436 claims as of June 18, 2020. Id. at ¶ 28. Due to the success of the notice program, the Settlement Administrator estimates an additional 87,145 Claims will be submitted by the deadline resulting in the exhaustion of the entire $7,000,000 Benefit Fund with only an approximate 10-12% pro rata adjustment in payments to Class Members to account for exhaustion of the fund. Id. at ¶¶ 30-31. The Settlement Administrator estimates that Class Members who submitted timely and valid claims will receive between $26.52 and $26.87 per claimant (out of the $30.00 max offered by the Settlement for those without proof of purchase), which nearly amounts to a full refund for the Subject Products purchased by Class Members. Id. at ¶ 31. This result is no easy feat. Plaintiff would not have been able to negotiate a settlement fund of this amount as a true “common fund,” where Defendant would have been guaranteed to forfeit $7,000,000. Instead, Plaintiff succeeded in negotiating a “claims made” $7,000,000 fund with a notice program that was clearly successful in enticing sufficient claims to be on track to exhaust the entire fund. Through a multi-media channel approach to notice, which employed print, digital, and social and mobile media, an the estimated 70% of targeted Class Members were reached by the media program, 3 times each on average – far higher than is commonly required in low-cost consumer goods settlements. Id. at ¶ 33. Furthermore, despite the success of the notice program, only 2 objections have been filed and no Class Members have opted out. Id. at ¶ 25. This Court has already preliminarily held that the Settlement is “fair, reasonable, and adequate.” See Order Preliminarily Approving Class Action Settlement ¶ 6. Given the success of the Notice Plan and substantial benefits conferred on Class Members, Plaintiff Moore now Page 2 of 23 Case No: 19-L-0846 requests that the Court enter an order in the form of the Proposed Final Approval Order, which is attached to the Settlement as Exhibit A. That Order will: (1) grant final approval of the Settlement; and (2) certify the Class for the purposes of settlement, designate Plaintiff Moore as Class Representative, and appoint Bursor & Fisher, P.A., Nelson & Nelson, Attorneys at Law, P.C., and Reich Radcliffe & Hoover LLP as Class Counsel. I. PROCEDURAL HISTORY A. Overview of the Litigation In December of 2018, Defendant Kimberly-Clark Worldwide, Inc. issued a recall of its U by Kotex® Sleek® Tampons, Regular Absorbency, that were manufactured between October 7, 2016 and October 16, 2018 and distributed between October 17, 2016 and October 23, 2018 (the “Recall”). On December 3, 2019, Plaintiff Moore filed this case in this Court alleging that Defendant Kimberly-Clark Worldwide, Inc. (“Kimberly-Clark” or “Defendant”) manufactured, distributed, and sold defective tampon products including Defendant’s U by Kotex® Sleek® Tampons, U by Kotex® Fitness® Tampons, U by Kotex® Click® Tampons, and U by Kotex® Security® Tampons in Regular, Super, and Super-Plus Absorbency (the “Subject Products”). Dkt. No. 1. Plaintiff alleged that the Subject Products all suffer the same Defect – namely, that they unravel upon removal. Plaintiff Moore asserted claims for unjust enrichment and breach of implied warranty of fitness. Id. Defendant has vigorously denied these claims. Prior to Plaintiff Moore’s filing of her Complaint in this case, Plaintiffs Natasha Parker and Christina Mills litigated a related case in the Central District of California, filed in March 2019, captioned Parker, et al. v. Kimberly-Clark Worldwide, Inc., Case No. 8:19-cv-00468-DOC (ADSx). Plaintiff’s Counsel here, Bursor & Fisher, P.A. and Reich Radcliffe & Hoover LLP, Page 3 of 23 Case No: 19-L-0846 were also counsel for Plaintiffs Parker and Mills in the C.D. Cal. litigation. In that case, Bursor & Fisher, P.A. and Reich Radcliffe & Hoover LLP defeated Kimberly-Clark’s motion to dismiss for lack of personal jurisdiction pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(2), a motion to dismiss pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(6) for failure to state a claim, a motion to dismiss pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(1) for lack of standing, and a motion to strike Plaintiffs’ nationwide class allegations. Plaintiffs in the C.D. Cal. case served Request for Production pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 34 and Interrogatories pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 33 and exchanged disclosures pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(a)(1). Without the assistance of Plaintiffs Parker and Mills, and the time and energy they spent litigating the C.D. Cal. case, this Settlement would not be possible. The Parties exchanged and met and conferred concerning a number of discovery requests, requests for production and deposition notices. In response, Defendant provided critical information concerning its sales and pricing of certain of the Subject Products. Id. Plaintiffs have also conducted extensive independent investigation of the Subject Products and have reviewed Defendant’s product reviews, and critical documents. Id. Counsel for Plaintiff and counsel for Defendant have engaged in substantial arm’s-length negotiations in an effort to resolve this action. On November 19, 2019, the Parties participated in a full-day mediation with Judge Wayne R. Andersen (Ret.) at JAMS in Chicago, Illinois, where, after more than 13 hours of mediation, the Parties executed a binding term sheet setting out the material terms of this Agreement. Through undertaking a thorough investigation, and protracted discovery, the parties have reached a settlement that provides a real and substantial monetary benefit to the Class. Defendant agreed to provide up to $7,000,000 to pay claims for those who purchased one or Page 4 of 23 Case No: 19-L-0846 more boxes of the Subject Products on a claims-made basis. Class Members can receive up to a $6.00 cash award for each Subject Product the Authorized Claimant purchased during the Class Period, up to a maximum of five (5) claims (or $30.00 in cash) if the Authorized Claimant does not provide Proof of Purchase. Authorized Claimants who claim more than $30.00 in cash awards must submit Proof of Purchase establishing their purchase during the Class Period of each Subject Product claimed and may receive up to a full refund in cash awards based on the retail value of the Subject Products shown in the Proof of Purchase. Should the number of timely and valid claims exceed $7,000,000, the class member awards will be adjusted on a pro rata basis. On April 21, 2020, this Court agreed that this is an excellent result for Class Members when it preliminarily approved the Settlement. See Order Preliminarily Approving Class Action Settlement. Since that time, Class Counsel has diligently monitored the successful notice program and claims administration process. B. The Parties’ Reasons for Settling Plaintiff and her counsel have agreed to the Settlement after considering the risks and uncertainties of further litigation. Further considerations supporting Plaintiff’s decision to enter into the proposed Settlement on behalf of the proposed Settlement Class are (i) the favorable settlement terms and class recovery; (ii) the substantial benefits the Settlement confers upon the Settlement Class; and (iii) the deterrence of similar future alleged conduct by Defendant. Defendant asserts that its conduct with respect to the matters complained of was at all respects, and at all times, entirely proper, lawful, and fair. Accordingly, Defendant believes that no one was harmed or damaged in any way by any of the conduct alleged in this action, or resolved by the proposed Settlement. Defendant desires, notwithstanding its view that Plaintiff’s Page 5 of 23 Case No: 19-L-0846 claims lack merit, to settle the Litigation to avoid further expense, inconvenience, and interference with ongoing business operations, and to dispose of burdensome litigation, and therefore believes settlement is appropriate without any admission of liability. II. TERMS OF THE PROPOSED SETTLEMENT The proposed Class consists of all persons in the United States and United States Territories who purchased at retail one or more of the Subject Products during the Class Period.

Load more

  57

Copy Link