Part of a Much Bigger Picture
The settlement follows a key development last November, when the Tennessee federal judge overseeing the multidistrict litigation preliminarily approved 26 class settlements totaling about $141 million. That approval came despite objections from the attorneys general of Washington, D.C., New Jersey, Maryland and Kentucky.
Those state officials argued the court lacked sufficient detail to evaluate whether the settlements were fair.
States Push Back — and Get Pushed Back
In their objections, the attorneys general said the plaintiffs’ memorandum seeking preliminary approval failed to estimate how much individual class members might receive. They argued it did not explain how settlement funds would be distributed, how attorneys’ fees and litigation costs would be handled, or whether the recoveries were proportionate to alleged harms.
The memorandum, they added, never compared the total settlement amounts with estimated aggregate damages or rent overcharges, nor did it calculate any percentage recovery.
Several landlords countered that the states lacked standing to object, pointing to the Sixth Circuit’s 2019 ruling in Chapman v. Tristar Products Inc. In that case, the appellate court rejected Arizona’s attempt to object to a nationwide class action settlement, holding that objections belonged to class members themselves.
“In insisting that parens patriae and CAFA give them a unique interest,” the landlords argued, the attorneys general were rehashing arguments already rejected by Chapman.
