 |
 |
 |
Rejecting Opposition
Williams v. Weyerhaeuser Co., 2002 WL 373578, at *10 (Cal. App. 1 Dist.): Objectors' own experience indicates the campaign was effective. Three of them received individual notices, two learned of the settlement through advertisements, and the others apparently learned of the settlement when one of them went around the neighborhood and told his neighbors about the settlement.
Judge Michael Canaday, Morrow v. Conoco Inc., (May 25, 2005) No. 2002-3860 G (14th J.D. Ct. La.): The objections, if any, made to due process, constitutionality, procedures, and compliance with law, including, but not limited to, the adequacy of notice and the fairness of the proposed Settlement Agreement, lack merit and are hereby overruled.
Judge Harold Baer, Jr., Thompson v. Metropolitan Life Ins. Co., 216 F.R.D. 55, 68 (S.D. N.Y. 2003): [T]he notice campaign that defendant agreed to undertake was extensive . . . I am satisfied, having reviewed the contents of the notice package, and the extensive steps taken to disseminate notice of the settlement, that the class notice complies with the requirements of Rule 23 (c)(2) and 23(e). In summary, I have reviewed all of the objections, and none persuade me to conclude that the proposed settlement is unfair, inadequate or unreasonable.
