United States: The Next Best Thing - Or Not

One of the most controversial issues in class action litigation is the use of the cy pres doctrine to create an agreed-upon remedy when settlement proceeds cannot, for some reason, be distributed to the plaintiffs class. In such cases, when recovered funds are not fully dispersed to the members of a class - and some or all the money goes unclaimed - it can be paid to a third-party beneficiary, in an attempt to provide the class with a benefit cy pres comme possible ("as close as possible") to what a classwide distribution would have achieved. Providing such a result - while simultaneously avoiding complications and potentially prohibitive administrative costs - makes cy pres an attractive tool for courts and parties seeking to resolve class disputes.

But as recent cases illustrate, cy pres has become a doctrine with a split personality. It is both a trust doctrine and a class action tool, a creature of both common law and statute, a feature of both federal and state law. As a legal and practical reality, there is rarely a clear "next best thing" - and as recent cases from the Ninth Circuit teach, the crucial issue in applying cy pres in the class action context is: How close is close enough?

Origins of Cy Pres

Although it has become important in civil class actions, the roots of this time-honored doctrine are in trust law. Cy pres came into being to solve a perennial problem: what to do when some outside force frustrates the purpose of a trust. When this occurs, the courts historically have allowed the trust administrator to seek a use for the funds that fits the trustor's intent as closely as possible. Rather than let the trust fail, cy pres allows a shift to the next best solution. (See Pennsylvania v. Coxe, 4 U.S. 170, 203 (1800) ("Although a charity cannot take place according to the letter, yet it ought to be performed cy-pres, and the substance preserved.") (citing 17th-century English precedent).)

In class actions, a similar situation arises when complete compensation of all class members is either impossible, or prohibitively costly and complicated. The theoretically presumed outcome following resolution of a class action is full payment to each class member according to the terms of the applicable settlement or judgment. As a practical matter, however, full distribution of funds to the class may not be feasible - for example, claims may not be submitted properly, or even at all, by every class member.

After as much of a classwide fund as possible has been distributed to the class, there can be a sizable "residue" that must be disposed of. Before the courts adopted the cy pres doctrine to fill the gap, the choices for solving this residue dilemma were generally two-fold: Either the unpaid residue would revert to the defendant, or escheat to the state.

But cy pres, in the hands of creative lawyers and judges, provided a third option. One of the earliest examples of this approach involved allegations of overcharging for streetcar services in San Francisco. In 1946 the court determined that the railway had overcharged patrons by roughly $700,000, and it created a mechanism through which individuals could claim their share of the recovery. Some compensation was paid - approximately $12,000 - but the vast majority of the funds went unclaimed. Rather than allow the residue to revert to the railway or to escheat to the state, the court decided to put it to a use that would provide as much benefit as possible to streetcar riders, since so few had been directly compensated. The court's solution was to put the remaining $688,000 toward system repairs and to order a fare reduction for a period of time. Although most received no money directly, the railway's patrons would be able to pay less for an improved service and thus reap the benefit of the litigation brought on their behalf. (See Market Street Ry. Co. v. R.R. Comm'n, 28 Cal. 2d 363 (1946).)

After that initial ruling, more courts began to apply cy pres in the civil litigation context and eventually the doctrine began to take shape as a class action-specific remedial tool. (In re Agent Orange Prod. Liab. Litig., 597 F. Supp. 740, 841 (E.D.N.Y. 1984) (discussing disagreement among federal courts about doctrine); Simer v. Rios, 661 F.2d 655, 675-677 (7th Cir. 1981) (discussing, but not applying, cy pres as an alternative); and California v. Levi Strauss & Co., 41 Cal. 3d 460 (1986).)

Federal Cy Pres

Over the years, the federal courts - and the Ninth Circuit in particular - have become increasingly wary about the use of cy pres in class action cases. The Ninth Circuit, while recognizing the doctrine's utility as an alternative to direct class compensation, has expressed concern about the potential for abuse, or at least for divergence from the best interests of class members. With the goal of having a clear nexus between the proposed remedy and the alleged harm to the class, it and other federal courts have set out distinctive guidelines on what a cy pres remedy ought to look like.

Recognizing that trial courts have broad discretion to shape remedies, the Ninth Circuit declared that the choice ought to be guided by "the objectives of the underlying statute and the interests of the silent class members." (Six Mexican Workers v. Arizona Citrus Growers, 904 F.2d 1301, 1307 (9th Cir. 1990).) Although the court endorsed the use of cy pres generally, it found that the proposed remedy in Six Mexican Workers - funding an international organization that did beneficial work in areas in Mexico where class members had come from - was too remote from the underlying violation of farm labor laws in the United States to be the proverbial next best thing. The court directed the parties and the lower court to craft a better remedy or escheat the funds on the second try.

Two decades later, the Ninth Circuit cited Six Mexican Workers in coming down harshly on a cy pres remedy proposal that it found to miss the mark. In Nachshin v. AOL, LLC (663 F.3d 1034 (9th Cir. 2011)), the trial court resolved a class action regarding the practice of inserting advertisements into email footers by ordering donations from the defendant to six charities - three chosen by the lead plaintiffs and their counsel, and three chosen by the judge. On appeal, the Ninth Circuit rejected the selected cy pres beneficiaries because they were local charities that would not serve the interests of the geographically broad class of email account holders, on the one hand, and because of various connections between the attorneys and judges and the charities they chose, on the other. The court expressed concern that the allocation of funds "[u]nbridled by a driving nexus between the plaintiff class and the cy pres beneficiaries" creates an appearance of self-interest and impropriety. (Nachshin, 663 F.3d at 1038.) If the proposed distribution does not serve the interests of the class, the court held, then cy pres does not serve its historic purpose and is an inappropriate use of class funds. On remand, the court directed the parties and trial judge to either find an appropriate cy pres beneficiary - one that was connected to the cause of action and would serve the interests of the class - or else escheat the funds. (663 F.3d at 1041.)

The following year, the Ninth Circuit reiterated its position that "[n]ot just any worthy recipient can qualify as an appropriate cy pres beneficiary." (Dennis v. Kellogg Co., 697 F.3d 858, 865 (9th Cir. 2012).) The plaintiffs claimed that Kellogg engaged in false or misleading advertising when the cereal company claimed its breakfast products would improve children's alertness and academic performance. One part of the proposed settlement was a donation of $10 million worth of Kellogg's products to charities combating hunger. The Ninth Circuit rejected the plan, finding that the "noble goal" of feeding the poor "has little or nothing to do with the purposes of the underlying lawsuit or the class of plaintiffs involved." (Dennis, 697 F.3d at 866 (quoting Nachshin).) The court sent the parties back to the drawing board to craft an appropriate settlement.

Meanwhile, another cy pres case from the Ninth Circuit (Lane v. Facebook, Inc., 696 F.3d 811 (9th Cir. 2012), petition for cert. filed July 26, 2013, sub nom. Marek v. Lane, No. 13-136)) has sparked a cert petition at the U.S. Supreme Court.

State Law

In California, state law roughly tracks federal courts' gloss on the purpose of cy pres - with an important exception. Here, the doctrine is governed by section 384 of the Code of Civil Procedure, which declares, "It is the intent of the Legislature in enacting this section to ensure that the unpaid residuals in class action litigation are distributed, to the extent possible, in a manner designed either to further the purposes of the underlying cause of action or" - and this is California's unique twist on the doctrine - "to promote justice for all Californians." (Cal. Civ. Proc. § 384(a).) This latter permissible means of resolution is far more expansive than federal courts generally allow. Section 384(b) lists acceptable types of cy pres recipients, including "nonprofit organizations or foundations to support projects that will benefit the class or similarly situated persons, or that promote the law consistent with the objectives and purposes of the underlying cause of action, to child advocacy programs, or to nonprofit organizations providing civil legal services to the indigent." The first two categories mirror the Six Mexican Workers standard, but the last two would likely be rejected if proposed in the Ninth Circuit.

A 2006 case illustrates the point. In a class action against a computer manufacturer, an intermediate appellate court approved a settlement quite similar to the solution rejected in Nachshin. (See In re Microsoft I-V Cases, 135 Cal. App. 4th 706 (2006).) The case, alleging software overcharges, involved violations of the Cartwright Act and the Unfair Competition Law; the proposed settlement provided for consumer vouchers to class members and cy pres vouchers for public schools with low-income students. Under the Ninth Circuit's standards in Nachshin and Dennis, the contributions to education and computer literacy, while admirable, would be far too removed from the commercial claims undergirding the case to pass muster. However, the California court ruled in Microsoft that the class members would benefit from "a new generation of computer literate children [entering] the work force fully trained to make the best use of computer technology," and also "indirectly through a reduced tax burden to fund technology investment in eligible schools." (Microsoft, 135 Cal. App. 4th at 726.) The opinion noted that the settlement served its cy pres purpose by "ensuring that Microsoft incurred a minimum liability," without depending on individual class members to make claims. (135 Cal. App. 4th at 728.) The court was satisfied that the proposed settlement came close enough to be permissible cy pres under section 384.

The other distinguishing feature of the California cy pres remedy is its willingness to embrace a general charitable option as an alternative to - not necessarily a next step after - distribution of funds to the class. For example, the court in one case found that the statute's reference to the "residue" in a class action does not preclude a settlement between the parties that allocates even the full amount of damages to charitable recipients, with no distribution at all to the class. In settling allegations of price-fixing and unfair competition in the vitamin market, the defendant companies agreed to pay $38 million to several health- and nutrition-related entities. The court approved the settlement. (See In re Vitamin Cases, 107 Cal. App. 4th 820 (2003).)

Unjust Enrichment

An animating policy behind the use of cy pres in class actions is avoiding unjust enrichment. If funds cannot end up in the hands of the class members, the focus shifts to where the money should go instead - or, more accurately, where it should not go.

It is worth noting that in Nachshin, the Ninth Circuit, in addition to objecting that the members of the class would reap minimal benefit, expressed great concern about the various personal connections among the attorneys, the trial court judge, and the proposed charity recipients of the cy pres funds: "When selection of cy pres beneficiaries is not tethered to the nature of the lawsuit and the interests of the silent class members, the selection process may answer to the whims and self interests of the parties, their counsel, or the court. Moreover, the specter of judges and outside entities dealing in the distribution and solicitation of settlement money may create the appearance of impropriety." (Nachshin, 666 F.3d at 1039.)

In the federal framework, the compensatory goal of cy pres appears to be the primary consideration. In order to secure court approval, a proposed cy pres remedy must demonstrate a logical and defensible connection to the class and its alleged harm. Thus in Dennis, where the harm was false advertising of food, the court rejected a donation to feed the hungry as too far removed to qualify as a remedy. (Dennis, 697 F.3d at 866.) In short, from the federal equitable perspective, a cy pres remedy without a nexus to the harm suffered by the class would unjustly enrich the recipient who reaps a benefit without suffering any harm.

California, however, allows more flexibility in identifying the recipient of a cy pres distribution. Its statute focuses on the general beneficial impact of a cy pres remedy, and a worthy recipient need not be tethered tightly to the class.

So, the answer to the ultimate cy pres question - how close is close enough? - depends mainly on judicial attitudes and statutory mandates, in addition to the facts of the case. The clearest lesson from the case law is that lawyers fashioning a cy pres remedy in a class action should know the standards that the court will use - to either approve the remedy, or send the parties back to the negotiating table.

The content of this article is intended to provide a general guide to the subject matter. Specialist advice should be sought about your specific circumstances.

To print this article, all you need is to be registered on Mondaq.com.

Click to Login as an existing user or Register so you can print this article.

Authors
Similar Articles
Relevancy Powered by MondaqAI
Reed Smith
Reed Smith
 
In association with
Related Topics
 
Similar Articles
Relevancy Powered by MondaqAI
Reed Smith
Reed Smith
Related Articles
 
Related Video
Up-coming Events Search
Tools
Print
Font Size:
Translation
Channels
Mondaq on Twitter
 
Register for Access and our Free Biweekly Alert for
This service is completely free. Access 250,000 archived articles from 100+ countries and get a personalised email twice a week covering developments (and yes, our lawyers like to think you’ve read our Disclaimer).
 
Email Address
Company Name
Password
Confirm Password
Position
Mondaq Topics -- Select your Interests
 Accounting
 Anti-trust
 Commercial
 Compliance
 Consumer
 Criminal
 Employment
 Energy
 Environment
 Family
 Finance
 Government
 Healthcare
 Immigration
 Insolvency
 Insurance
 International
 IP
 Law Performance
 Law Practice
 Litigation
 Media & IT
 Privacy
 Real Estate
 Strategy
 Tax
 Technology
 Transport
 Wealth Mgt
Regions
Africa
Asia
Asia Pacific
Australasia
Canada
Caribbean
Europe
European Union
Latin America
Middle East
U.K.
United States
Worldwide Updates
Registration (you must scroll down to set your data preferences)

Mondaq Ltd requires you to register and provide information that personally identifies you, including your content preferences, for three primary purposes (full details of Mondaq’s use of your personal data can be found in our Privacy and Cookies Notice):

  • To allow you to personalize the Mondaq websites you are visiting to show content ("Content") relevant to your interests.
  • To enable features such as password reminder, news alerts, email a colleague, and linking from Mondaq (and its affiliate sites) to your website.
  • To produce demographic feedback for our content providers ("Contributors") who contribute Content for free for your use.

Mondaq hopes that our registered users will support us in maintaining our free to view business model by consenting to our use of your personal data as described below.

Mondaq has a "free to view" business model. Our services are paid for by Contributors in exchange for Mondaq providing them with access to information about who accesses their content. Once personal data is transferred to our Contributors they become a data controller of this personal data. They use it to measure the response that their articles are receiving, as a form of market research. They may also use it to provide Mondaq users with information about their products and services.

Details of each Contributor to which your personal data will be transferred is clearly stated within the Content that you access. For full details of how this Contributor will use your personal data, you should review the Contributor’s own Privacy Notice.

Please indicate your preference below:

Yes, I am happy to support Mondaq in maintaining its free to view business model by agreeing to allow Mondaq to share my personal data with Contributors whose Content I access
No, I do not want Mondaq to share my personal data with Contributors

Also please let us know whether you are happy to receive communications promoting products and services offered by Mondaq:

Yes, I am happy to received promotional communications from Mondaq
No, please do not send me promotional communications from Mondaq
Terms & Conditions

Mondaq.com (the Website) is owned and managed by Mondaq Ltd (Mondaq). Mondaq grants you a non-exclusive, revocable licence to access the Website and associated services, such as the Mondaq News Alerts (Services), subject to and in consideration of your compliance with the following terms and conditions of use (Terms). Your use of the Website and/or Services constitutes your agreement to the Terms. Mondaq may terminate your use of the Website and Services if you are in breach of these Terms or if Mondaq decides to terminate the licence granted hereunder for any reason whatsoever.

Use of www.mondaq.com

To Use Mondaq.com you must be: eighteen (18) years old or over; legally capable of entering into binding contracts; and not in any way prohibited by the applicable law to enter into these Terms in the jurisdiction which you are currently located.

You may use the Website as an unregistered user, however, you are required to register as a user if you wish to read the full text of the Content or to receive the Services.

You may not modify, publish, transmit, transfer or sell, reproduce, create derivative works from, distribute, perform, link, display, or in any way exploit any of the Content, in whole or in part, except as expressly permitted in these Terms or with the prior written consent of Mondaq. You may not use electronic or other means to extract details or information from the Content. Nor shall you extract information about users or Contributors in order to offer them any services or products.

In your use of the Website and/or Services you shall: comply with all applicable laws, regulations, directives and legislations which apply to your Use of the Website and/or Services in whatever country you are physically located including without limitation any and all consumer law, export control laws and regulations; provide to us true, correct and accurate information and promptly inform us in the event that any information that you have provided to us changes or becomes inaccurate; notify Mondaq immediately of any circumstances where you have reason to believe that any Intellectual Property Rights or any other rights of any third party may have been infringed; co-operate with reasonable security or other checks or requests for information made by Mondaq from time to time; and at all times be fully liable for the breach of any of these Terms by a third party using your login details to access the Website and/or Services

however, you shall not: do anything likely to impair, interfere with or damage or cause harm or distress to any persons, or the network; do anything that will infringe any Intellectual Property Rights or other rights of Mondaq or any third party; or use the Website, Services and/or Content otherwise than in accordance with these Terms; use any trade marks or service marks of Mondaq or the Contributors, or do anything which may be seen to take unfair advantage of the reputation and goodwill of Mondaq or the Contributors, or the Website, Services and/or Content.

Mondaq reserves the right, in its sole discretion, to take any action that it deems necessary and appropriate in the event it considers that there is a breach or threatened breach of the Terms.

Mondaq’s Rights and Obligations

Unless otherwise expressly set out to the contrary, nothing in these Terms shall serve to transfer from Mondaq to you, any Intellectual Property Rights owned by and/or licensed to Mondaq and all rights, title and interest in and to such Intellectual Property Rights will remain exclusively with Mondaq and/or its licensors.

Mondaq shall use its reasonable endeavours to make the Website and Services available to you at all times, but we cannot guarantee an uninterrupted and fault free service.

Mondaq reserves the right to make changes to the services and/or the Website or part thereof, from time to time, and we may add, remove, modify and/or vary any elements of features and functionalities of the Website or the services.

Mondaq also reserves the right from time to time to monitor your Use of the Website and/or services.

Disclaimer

The Content is general information only. It is not intended to constitute legal advice or seek to be the complete and comprehensive statement of the law, nor is it intended to address your specific requirements or provide advice on which reliance should be placed. Mondaq and/or its Contributors and other suppliers make no representations about the suitability of the information contained in the Content for any purpose. All Content provided "as is" without warranty of any kind. Mondaq and/or its Contributors and other suppliers hereby exclude and disclaim all representations, warranties or guarantees with regard to the Content, including all implied warranties and conditions of merchantability, fitness for a particular purpose, title and non-infringement. To the maximum extent permitted by law, Mondaq expressly excludes all representations, warranties, obligations, and liabilities arising out of or in connection with all Content. In no event shall Mondaq and/or its respective suppliers be liable for any special, indirect or consequential damages or any damages whatsoever resulting from loss of use, data or profits, whether in an action of contract, negligence or other tortious action, arising out of or in connection with the use of the Content or performance of Mondaq’s Services.

General

Mondaq may alter or amend these Terms by amending them on the Website. By continuing to Use the Services and/or the Website after such amendment, you will be deemed to have accepted any amendment to these Terms.

These Terms shall be governed by and construed in accordance with the laws of England and Wales and you irrevocably submit to the exclusive jurisdiction of the courts of England and Wales to settle any dispute which may arise out of or in connection with these Terms. If you live outside the United Kingdom, English law shall apply only to the extent that English law shall not deprive you of any legal protection accorded in accordance with the law of the place where you are habitually resident ("Local Law"). In the event English law deprives you of any legal protection which is accorded to you under Local Law, then these terms shall be governed by Local Law and any dispute or claim arising out of or in connection with these Terms shall be subject to the non-exclusive jurisdiction of the courts where you are habitually resident.

You may print and keep a copy of these Terms, which form the entire agreement between you and Mondaq and supersede any other communications or advertising in respect of the Service and/or the Website.

No delay in exercising or non-exercise by you and/or Mondaq of any of its rights under or in connection with these Terms shall operate as a waiver or release of each of your or Mondaq’s right. Rather, any such waiver or release must be specifically granted in writing signed by the party granting it.

If any part of these Terms is held unenforceable, that part shall be enforced to the maximum extent permissible so as to give effect to the intent of the parties, and the Terms shall continue in full force and effect.

Mondaq shall not incur any liability to you on account of any loss or damage resulting from any delay or failure to perform all or any part of these Terms if such delay or failure is caused, in whole or in part, by events, occurrences, or causes beyond the control of Mondaq. Such events, occurrences or causes will include, without limitation, acts of God, strikes, lockouts, server and network failure, riots, acts of war, earthquakes, fire and explosions.

By clicking Register you state you have read and agree to our Terms and Conditions