§Why CasetextPricing

Tsang et al v. Zara USA, Inc.

MOTION

9 Cited authorities

  1. Cook v. Niedert

    142 F.3d 1004 (7th Cir. 1998)   Cited 422 times
    Holding that, because a case had been pending before the district court for five years and the district court had seen the parties throughout the case, the district court was "'far better suited than an appellate court to assess a reasonable fee'" (quoting Harman v. Lyphomed, Inc., 945 F.2d 969, 973 (7th Cir. 1991)(alterations omitted))

  2. Redman v. Radioshack Corp.

    768 F.3d 622 (7th Cir. 2014)   Cited 154 times   12 Legal Analyses
    Holding that class counsel's filing of an attorneys’-fee motion "after the deadline set by the court for objections to the settlement had expired" violated Rule 23(h) and stating that "[t]here was no excuse for permitting so irregular, indeed unlawful, a procedure"

  3. Pearson v. NBTY, Inc.

    772 F.3d 778 (7th Cir. 2014)   Cited 76 times   9 Legal Analyses
    Concluding that the claims process of a consumer class action settlement appeared to have been designed "with an eye toward discouraging the filing of claims"

  4. Stillmock v. Weis Mkts., Inc.

    385 F. App'x 267 (4th Cir. 2010)   Cited 78 times   4 Legal Analyses
    Adopting a "per-consumer" rather than a "per-receipt" interpretation of § 1681n

  5. In re Synthroid Marketing Litigation

    325 F.3d 974 (7th Cir. 2003)   Cited 67 times
    Concluding that an agreement as to fees reached by counsel in a class action is not binding, rather it must be approved by the court

  6. Yuzary v. HSBC Bank U.S.

    No. 12 Civ. 3693 (PGG) (S.D.N.Y. Oct. 2, 2013)   Cited 3 times
    Approving award of 31.7% of the fund constituting 7.6 times the lodestar as "nearer the higher end of the range of multipliers"

  7. Brittingham v. Cerasimo, Inc. (N.D.Ind. 2009)

    621 F. Supp. 2d 646 (N.D. Ind. 2009)   Cited 1 times

    Cause No. 2:08-CV-216-TS. April 14, 2009. Daniel A. Edelman, Thomas E. Soule, Edelman Combs Latturner Goodwin LLC, Chicago, IL, for Plaintiffs. Edward W. Hearn, Johnson Bell Ltd., Merrillville, IN, for Defendant. OPINION AND ORDER THERESA L. SPRINGMANN, District Judge. Before the Court is a Motion to Dismiss Plaintiffs' Complaint Pursuant to Rule 12(b)(1) [DE 14], filed on September 24, 2008, by Defendant Cerasimo, Inc. The Defendant asks the Court to dismiss the Complaint, which alleges violations

  8. Section 1681n - Civil liability for willful noncompliance

    15 U.S.C. § 1681n   Cited 2,316 times   42 Legal Analyses
    In §§1681n and 1681o, the Act authorizes consumer suits for money damages against "[a]ny person" who willfully or negligently fails to comply with this directive.

  9. Section 1681c - Requirements relating to information contained in consumer reports

    15 U.S.C. § 1681c   Cited 637 times   58 Legal Analyses
    Reporting certain criminal information older than 7 years