green
Positive treatment
Hot · 54 in 5y
Quoted verbatim 6×
74.0 score
“in the context of class action settlements, a court may employ the cy pres doctrine 4 to put the unclaimed fund to its next best compensation use, e.g., for the aggregate, indirect, 5 prospective benefit of the class.”
Treatment trajectory · 2011 → 2026 · click a year to view as-of
2011
2018
2026
Top citers, strongest first. 50 distinct citers.
How cited ↗
examined
Cited "but see"
In re Citigroup Inc. Securities Litigation
(5×)
also: Cited "see"
But see Nachshin, 663 F.3d at 1038-39 .
examined
Cited as authority (verbatim quote)
Almada v. Krieger Law Firm, A.P.C.
(2×)
also: Cited "see"
in the context of class action settlements, a court may employ the cy pres doctrine 4 to put the unclaimed fund to its next best compensation use, e.g., for the aggregate, indirect, 5 prospective benefit of the class.
examined
Cited as authority (verbatim quote)
Ohring v. UniSea Inc
cy pres distributions must account for the nature of the . . . lawsuit, the 18 objectives of the underlying statutes, and the interests of the silent class members, including their geographic diversity.
examined
Cited as authority (verbatim quote)
Boyd v. Bank of America, N.A.
cy pres distributions must account for the 21 nature of the plaintiffs' lawsuit, the objectives of the underlying statutes, and the interests 22 of the silent class members, including their geographic diversity.
examined
Cited as authority (verbatim quote)
Sarah Murphy v. Sfbsc Management, LLC
(3×)
also: Cited as authority (rule), Cited "see"
a court abuses its discretion when it fails to apply the correct legal standard . . . .
examined
Cited as authority (verbatim quote)
Pine v. A Place For Mom, Inc.
cy pres distributions must 4 account for the nature of the plaintiffs' lawsuit, the objectives of the underlying statutes, 5 and the interests of the silent class members, including their geographic diversity.
examined
Cited as authority (quoted)
Benjamin Joffe v. Google, Inc.
(10×)
also: Cited as authority (rule), Cited "see"
to remedy some of these concerns, we held in six mexican workers that cy pres distribution must be guided by (1) the objectives of the underlying statute(s) and (2) the interests of the silent class members.
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Randall v. Integrated Communication Service Inc
(Id.) 22 23 24 1 III DISCUSSION 2 “The cy pres doctrine allows a court to distribute unclaimed or non-distributable portions 3 of a class action settlement fund to the ‘next best’ class of beneficiaries.” Nachshin v. AOL, 4 LLC, 663 F.3d 1034, 1036 (9th Cir. 2011) (citing Six (6) Mexican Workers v. Ariz. Citrus 5 Growers, 904 F.2d 1301 , 1307–08 (9th Cir. 1990)). “[F]ederal courts frequently use the cy pres 6 doctrine ‘in the settlement of class actions where the proof of individual claims would be 7 burdensome or distribution of damages costly.’” Id. at 1038 (quoting Six Mex…
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Wickham v. Schenker, Inc.
“Cy pres refers to a method for distributing unclaimed settlement funds 5 ‘to the ‘next best’ class of beneficiaries.’” Campbell v. Facebook, Inc., 951 F.3d 1106 , 1116 n.6 6 (9th Cir. 2020) (quoting Nachshin v. AOL, LLC, 663 F.3d 1034, 1036 (9th Cir. 2011)).
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Saliba v. KS Statebank Corporation
ANALYSIS 8 “Cy pres distributions must account for the nature of the plaintiffs’ lawsuit, the 9 objectives of the underlying statutes, and the interests of the silent class members, including 10 their geographic diversity.” Nachshin v. AOL, LLC, 663 F.3d 1034, 1036 (9th Cir. 2011) 11 (citing Six (6) Mexican Workers v. Ariz. Citrus Growers, 904 F.2d 1301, 1307-08 (9th Cir. 12 1990)).
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Saliba v. KS Statebank Corporation
Legal Standard 4 “Cy pres distributions must account for the nature of the plaintiffs’ lawsuit, the 5 objectives of the underlying statutes, and the interests of the silent class members, including 6 their geographic diversity.” Nachshin v. AOL, LLC, 663 F.3d 1034, 1036 (9th Cir. 2011) 7 (citing Six (6) Mexican Workers v. Ariz. Citrus Growers, 904 F.2d 1301, 1307-08 (9th Cir. 8 1990)).
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Martinez v. Semi-Tropic Cooperative Gin & Almond Huller, Inc.
Cal. May 25, 2023) (granting final approval of a settlement that included an 11 agreement to issue supplementary payments of residual funds). 12 When the parties elect to distribute funds to a cy pres beneficiary, the appointed recipient should 13 be “tethered to the nature of the lawsuit and the interest of the silent class members.” Nachshin v. AOL, 14 LLC, 663 F.3d 1034, 1039 (9th Cir. 2011).
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Almada v. Krieger Law Firm, A.P.C.
Commc’ns Litig., 4 21 F.4th at 1111 (quoting Nachshin v. AOL, LLC, 663 F.3d 1034, 1036 (9th Cir. 2011)). 5 Under the cy pres doctrine, class members “benefit—albeit indirectly—from a defendant’s 6 payment of funds to an appropriate third party.” Id. at 1116 .
cited
Cited as authority (rule)
Gatchalian v. Atlantic Recovery Solutions, LLC
Commc’ns Litig., 21 F.4th 1102 , 1111 (9th Cir. Dec. 27, 2021) (quoting Nachsin v. AOL, 4 LLC, 663 F.3d 1034, 1036 (9th Cir. 2011).
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Steinberg v. CoreLogic Credco, LLC
No. 55 at 10.) The Court requests 26 supplemental briefing that details how the proposed cy pres distributions are “guided by 27 (1) the objectives of the underlying statute(s) and (2) the interests of the silent class 28 members.” See Nachshin v. AOL, LLC, 663 F.3d 1034, 1039 (9th Cir. 2011) (citing Six 1 || Mexican Workers v. Arizona Citrus Growers, 904 F.2d 1301, 1307 (9th Cir. 1990)).
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Schmidt v. Vision Service Plan
Cy Pres Award 26 Courts must consider whether awards to the beneficiary “(1) address the objectives of the 27 underlying statutes, (2) target the plaintiff class, or (3) provide reasonable certainty that any 28 member will be benefitted.” Nachshin v. AOL, LLC, 663 F.3d 1034, 1039 (9th Cir.2011).
cited
Cited as authority (rule)
Figueroa v. Capital One, N.A.
Litig. 21 4th 1102, 1111 (9th Cir. 2021) (quoting Nachshin 25 v. AOL, LLC, 663 F.3d 1034, 1036 (9th Cir. 2011)).
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Hardy v. Embark Technology, Inc. f/k/a Northern Genesis Acquisition Corp. II
“Cy pres distributions must account for the nature of the plaintiffs’ 24 lawsuit, the objectives of the underlying statutes, and the interests of the silent class members, 25 including their geographic diversity.” Nachshin v. AOL, LLC, 663 F.3d 1034, 1036 (9th Cir. 26 2011). 27 The Court need not resolve this issue at the preliminary approval stage, but notes Plaintiffs 1 final approval. 2 6) Obvious Deficiencies 3 The Court also considers whether the Settlement Agreement has obvious deficiencies. 4 Here, while the Court initially highlighted some concerns regarding the Settlement Agreem…
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Ayala v. Valley First Credit Union
There must be “a driving 4 nexus between the plaintiff class and the cy pres beneficiaries.” Dennis, 637 F.3d at 865 (quoting 5 Nachshin v. AOL, LLC, 663 F.3d 1034, 1038 (9th Cir. 2011)). 6 According to the settlement agreement, “Unclaimed Settlement Funds,” i.e., any uncashed 7 checks made payable to class members—"Individual Settlement Payment” checks—will be 8 disbursed to the cy pres recipient award.
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Richard Clark v. Lsf9 Master Participation Trust
“A court abuses its discretion when it fails to apply the correct legal standard or bases its decision on unreasonable findings of fact.” Nachshin v. AOL, LLC, 663 F.3d 1034, 1038 (9th Cir 2011) (citing Las Vegas Sands, LLC v. Nehme, 632, F.3d 526, 532 (9th Cir. 2011)).
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Richard Clark v. Lsf9 Master Participation Trust
“A court abuses its discretion when it fails to apply the correct legal standard or bases its decision on unreasonable findings of fact.” Nachshin v. AOL, LLC, 663 F.3d 1034, 1038 (9th Cir 2011) (citing Las Vegas Sands, LLC v. Nehme, 632, F.3d 526, 532 (9th Cir. 2011)).
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Cortes v. National Credit Adjusters, L.L.C.
For the reasons set forth below, Plaintiff’s Motion is GRANTED.1 5 “The cy pres doctrine allows a court to distribute unclaimed or non-distributable 6 portions of a class action settlement fund to the ‘next best’ class of beneficiaries.” 7 Nachshin v. AOL, LLC, 663 F.3d 1034, 1036 (9th Cir. 2011) (citing Six (6) Mexican 8 Workers v. Ariz. Citrus Growers, 904 F.2d 1301 , 1307–08 (9th Cir. 1990)).
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Carolyn Callahan v. Brookdale Senior Living Cmty.
“A court abuses its discretion when it fails to apply the correct legal standard or bases its decision on unreasonable findings of fact.” Id. (quoting Nachshin v. AOL, LLC, 663 F.3d 1034, 1038 (9th Cir. 2011)). 4 The parties’ respective motions for judicial notice (No. 20-55603 Docket Entry Nos. 13, 24, 47, 55; No. 20-55761 Docket Entry Nos. 9, 20, 43, 51) are GRANTED. 14 CALLAHAN V.
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Liberty Insurance Corporation v. Yvonne Brodeur
Likewise, “[a district] court abuses its discretion when it fails to apply the correct legal standard or bases its decision on unreasonable findings of fact.” Briseño v. Henderson, 998 F.3d 1014, 1022 (9th Cir. 2021) (quoting Nachshin v. AOL, LLC, 663 F.3d 1034, 1038 (9th Cir. 2011)).
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Carolyn Callahan v. Brookdale Senior Living Cmty.
“A court abuses its discretion when it fails to apply the correct legal standard or bases its decision on unreasonable findings of fact.” Id. (quoting Nachshin v. AOL, LLC, 663 F.3d 1034, 1038 (9th Cir. 2011)).
cited
Cited as authority (rule)
Dixon v. Cushman & Wakefield Western, Inc.
Commc'ns Litig., 21 F.4th 1102 , 1111 (9th Cir. Dec. 27, 2021) (quoting Nachsin v. AOL, 11 LLC, 663 F.3d 1034, 1036 (9th Cir. 2011)).
cited
Cited as authority (rule)
Norton v. LVNV Funding, LLC
Commc’ns Litig., 21 F.4th 1102 , 1111 (9th Cir. Dec. 27, 2021) (quoting Nachsin v. AOL, 6 LLC, 663 F.3d 1034, 1036 (9th Cir. 2011).
examined
Cited as authority (rule)
Carlin v. DairyAmerica, Inc.
(3×)
also: Cited "see", Cited "see, e.g."
That is, cy pres allows a court to “put the unclaimed fund to its 26 next best compensation use, e.g. for the aggregate, indirect, prospective benefit of the class. 27 Nachsin v. AOL, LLC, 663 F.3d 1034, 1038 (9th Cir. 2011).
cited
Cited as authority (rule)
Peterson v. Nelnet Diversified Solutions, LLC
Union Co., 809 F.3d 555 , 560 n.2 (10th Cir. 2015) (quoting Nachshin v. AOL, LLC, 663 F.3d 1034, 1036 (9th Cir. 2011)).
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Martin v. Marriott International, Inc.
Nachshin v. AOL, LLC, 663 F.3d 1034, 1036 (9th Cir. 2011) (“The cy pres doctrine allows a court to distribute unclaimed or non- distributable portions of a class action settlement fund to the ‘next best’ class of beneficiaries” and these “distributions must account for the nature of the plaintiffs’ lawsuit, the objectives of the underlying statutes, and the interests of the silent class members, including their geographic diversity” (citations omitted)).
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Four in One Company, Inc. v. SK Foods, L.P.
The cy pres distribution must “(1) address the objectives of the underlying 2 statutes, (2) target the plaintiff class, or (3) provide reasonable certainty that any member will be 3 benefitted.” Nachshin v. AOL, LLC, 663 F.3d 1034, 1040 (9th Cir. 2011). 4 III.
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Cliffstar Corporation v. SK Foods
The cy pres distribution must “(1) address the objectives of the underlying 2 statutes, (2) target the plaintiff class, or (3) provide reasonable certainty that any member will be 3 benefitted.” Nachshin v. AOL, LLC, 663 F.3d 1034, 1040 (9th Cir. 2011). 4 III.
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Bruce Foods Corporation v. SK Foods LP
The cy pres distribution must “(1) address the objectives of the underlying 2 statutes, (2) target the plaintiff class, or (3) provide reasonable certainty that any member will be 3 benefitted.” Nachshin v. AOL, LLC, 663 F.3d 1034, 1040 (9th Cir. 2011). 4 III.
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Diversified Foods and Seasonings, Inc. v. SK Foods LP
The cy pres distribution must “(1) address the objectives of the underlying 2 statutes, (2) target the plaintiff class, or (3) provide reasonable certainty that any member will be 3 benefitted.” Nachshin v. AOL, LLC, 663 F.3d 1034, 1040 (9th Cir. 2011). 4 III.
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Lloyd v. Navy Federal Credit Union
LEGAL STANDARD 14 “[T]he ‘cy pres doctrine allows a court to distribute unclaimed or nondistributable 15 portions of a class action settlement fund to the ‘next best’ class of beneficiaries.’” Lane 16 v. Facebook, Inc., 696 F.3d 811, 819 (9th Cir. 2012) (quoting Nachshin v. AOL, LLC, 17 663 F.3d 1034, 1036 (9th Cir. 2011)).
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Loreto v. General Dynamics Information technology, Inc.
“Cy pres distributions must account 24 for the nature of the plaintiffs’ lawsuit, the objectives of the underlying statutes, and the 25 interests of the silent class members.” Nachshin v. AOL, LLC, 663 F.3d 1034, 1036 (9th 26 Cir. 2011).
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Robert Briseno v. Conagra Foods, Inc.
“A [district] court abuses its discretion when it fails to apply the correct legal standard or bases its decision on unreasonable findings of fact.” Nachshin v. AOL, LLC, 663 F.3d 1034, 1038 (9th Cir. 2011).
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Loreto v. General Dynamics Information technology, Inc.
However, “[c]y pres distributions must account for the nature 24 of the plaintiffs’ lawsuit, the objectives of the underlying statutes, and the interests of the 25 silent class members.” Nachshin v. AOL, LLC, 663 F.3d 1034, 1036 (9th Cir. 2011).
cited
Cited as authority (rule)
Peace Officers' Annuity and Benefit Fund of Georgia v. DaVita Inc.
Union Co., 809 F.3d 555 , 560 n.2 (10th Cir. 2015) (quoting Nachshin v. AOL, LLC, 663 F.3d 1034, 1036 (9th Cir. 2011)).
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Connor v. JPMorgan Chase Bank
The cy pres (often 12 translated as “next best”) distribution approach is typically employed when distribution to 13 individual class members is infeasible, but compensation directed towards to a related 14 institution or non-profit organization would best approximate such benefits to the class. 15 See Nachshin v. AOL, LLC, 663 F.3d 1034, 1038 (9th Cir. 2011); see also Principles of 16 the Law of Aggregate Litigation § 3.07(b) (Am.
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Smith v. One Nevada Credit Union
(2×)
also: Cited "see"
Overall, the doctrine of cy pres “allows a court to distribute 9 unclaimed or non-distributable portions of a class action settlement fund to the ‘next best’ class 10 of beneficiaries.” Nachshin v. AOL, LLC, 663 F.3d 1034, 1036 (9th Cir. 2011).
cited
Cited as authority (rule)
McKeon v. Integrity Pizza LLC
Union Co., 809 F.3d 555 , 560 n.2 (10th Cir. 2015) (quoting Nachshin v. AOL, LLC, 663 F.3d 1034, 1036 (9th Cir. 2011)).
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Cooks v. TNG GP
Nachshin v. AOL, LLC, 663 F. 3d 1034, 1039 (9th Cir. 2011) (citing 16 Six Mexican Workers, 904 F. 2d at 1307 ). 17 The proposed distribution of unclaimed funds to Legal Aid at Work satisfies these 18 guiding principles.
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Cooks v. TNG GP
Nachshin v. AOL, LLC, 663 F. 3d 1034, 1039 (9th Cir. 2011) (citing 16 Six Mexican Workers, 904 F. 2d at 1307 ). 17 The proposed distribution of unclaimed funds to Legal Aid at Work satisfies these 18 guiding principles.
cited
Cited as authority (rule)
McKeon v. Integrity Pizza LLC
Union Co., 809 F.3d 555 , 560 n.2 (10th Cir. 2015) (quoting Nachshin v. AOL, LLC, 663 F.3d 1034, 1036 (9th Cir. 2011)).
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Barnett v. Hall, Estill, Hardwick, Gable
Cf. ClearOne Commc’ns, Inc. v. Bowers, 643 F.3d 735 , 776–77 (10th Cir. 2011) (no recusal required where judge’s spouse was of counsel to law firm that had done unrelated work for litigant and spouse had not worked for litigant); Nachshin v. AOL, LLC, 663 F.3d 1034, 1041 (9th Cir. 2011) (judge’s husband’s serving as unpaid board member of nonprofit that stood to gain $25,000 as proposed cy pres beneficiary from litigation did not require recusal; the spouse would not benefit “in any way other than to enable [the nonprofit] to continue providing legal services to the indigent”).
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Beaver v. Tarsadia Hotels
No. 273-7, Schrag Decl., Ex. 4 E.) 5 The cy pres doctrine “allows a court to distribute unclaimed or non- 6 distributable portions of a class action settlement fund to the ‘next best’ class of 7 beneficiaries.” Nachsin v. AOL, LLC, 663 F.3d 1034, 1036 (9th Cir. 2011).
cited
Cited as authority (rule)
Campbell v. Facebook, Inc.
Injury in fact is “the 6 Cy pres refers to a method for distributing unclaimed settlement funds “to the ‘next best’ class of beneficiaries.” Nachshin v. AOL, LLC, 663 F.3d 1034, 1036 (9th Cir. 2011).
cited
Cited as authority (rule)
Pine v. A Place For Mom, Inc.
See Dennis v. Kellogg Co., 697 F.3d 858, 867 (9th Cir. 2012); 6 Nachshin v. AOL, LLC, 663 F.3d 1034, 1036 (9th Cir. 2011).
cited
Cited as authority (rule)
Robert Radcliffe v. Experian Information Solutions
Nachshin v. AOL, LLC, 663 F.3d 1034, 1038 (9th Cir. 2011).
Retrieving the full opinion text from the archive…
Jennifer L. LASTER; Andrew Thompson; Elizabeth Voorhies, on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated and on behalf of the general public, Plaintiffs, and Vincent Concepcion; Liza Concepcion, Plaintiffs-Appellees,
v.
AT & T Mobility LLC, Defendant-Appellant.
v.
AT & T Mobility LLC, Defendant-Appellant.
08-56394.
Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit.
Nov 21, 2011.
Mary M. Schroeder, Stephen Reinhardt, and Carlos T. Bea, Circuit Judges.
Published
Citer courts: Ninth Circuit (1)
Matthew B. Butler, Esquire, Craig Nicholas, Nicholas & Butler LLP, Kirk B. Hulett, Sarah P. Weber, Hulett Harper Stewart LLP, San Diego, CA, for Plaintiffs.
Donald Manwell Falk, Mayer Brown, LLP, Palo Alto, CA, Jesse M. Jauregui, Esquire, Alston & Bird LLP, Los Angeles, CA, Evan Mark Tager, Archis Ashok Parasharami, Mayer Brown LLP, Washington, DC, Michele A. Powers, Esquire, Alston & Bird LLP, Los Angeles, CA, for Defendant-Appellant.
Before: MARY M. SCHROEDER, STEPHEN REINHARDT, and CARLOS T. BEA, Circuit Judges.
ORDER
The case is remanded to the district court for proceedings consistent with the Supreme Court's opinion in AT & T Mobility LLC v. Concepcion, ___ U.S. ___, 131 S.Ct. 1740, 179 L.Ed.2d 742 (2011).