Week 4: Case Analysis
Instructions
Each student will treat this as an individual assignment (you do not need to meet with your team). Your response should be well rounded and analytical and should not just provide a conclusion or an opinion without explaining the reason for the choice.
1. The assignment should be submitted as a PowerPoint file and should include the following slides (some questions may take more than one slide).
· Parties: Identify the plaintiff and the defendant.
· Facts: Summarize only those facts critical to the outcome of the case.
· Procedure: What was the outcome in the lower court(s)? Who brought the appeal?
· Issue: Describe the central question or questions on which the case turns.
· Explain the applicable law(s): Do some research on and explain the laws cited in the case.
· Holding: How did the court resolve the issue(s)? Who won?
· Reasoning: Explain the logic that supported the court’s decision. Why did the court come to the conclusion it did? What facts or laws affected the decision?
· Legal research: Report something you have discovered about the case, parties, or other important elements of law from your own research.
· Conclusion: Summarize the key aspects of the decision and your recommendations on the court’s ruling.
· References: Use APA style for your citations and references.
2. Research the case using the case citation in the DeVry Library under databases (select – HeinOnline), FindLaw.com, and other legal sources.
3. Research the parties and circumstances of the case itself. The following cases can also be found in the textbook.
Case 4.1 In re Subway Sandwich Marketing & Sales Practices Litigation, T. Frank, Objector, No. 16-1652 (7th Cir. 2017)
CASE BELOW ( ALSO EXTENTED VERSION ATTACHED)
CASE 4.1 In re Subway Sandwich Marketing & Sales Practices Litigation, T. Frank, Objector, No. 16-1652 (7th Cir. 2017
)
FACT SUMMARY In January 2013, an Australian teenager measured his Subway Footlong sandwich and discovered it was only 11 inches long. He photographed the sandwich alongside a tape measure and posted the photo on his Facebook page. It went viral, and soon after a number of lawsuits were filed across the United States against Subway for damages and injunctive relief under state consumer-protection laws. The lawsuits were combined and several plaintiffs sought class action certification. During discovery, Subway established that their unbaked bread sticks are uniform, and the baked rolls rarely fall short of 12 inches. The minor variations that do occur are wholly attributable to the natural variability in the baking process and cannot be prevented. Nonetheless, Subway entered into a settlement agreement and implemented certain measures to ensure, to the extent practicable, that all Footlong sandwiches are at least 12 inches long. The settlement acknowledged, however, that even with these measures in place, some sandwich rolls will inevitably fall short due to the natural variability in the baking process. The parties also agreed to cap the fees of class counsel at $525,000. The settlement provided $500 for each of 10 class representatives (class members who allowed their name to be used as lead plaintiffs). However, Theodore Frank (Frank), one of the class members who received no payment, argued that the settlement enriched only the lawyers and provided no meaningful benefits to the class. The trial court preliminarily approved the settlement and Frank appealed.
SYNOPSIS OF DECISION AND OPINION The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit reversed the decision of the trial court and ruled in favor of Frank. The court held that the procedures required by the settlement do not benefit the class in any meaningful way and act only to benefit the class action lawyers. They reasoned that because there were no identifiable benefits to class members, the class should not have been certified, and the settlement should not have been approved.
WORDS OF THE COURT: No Meaningful Relief “A class settlement that results in fees for class counsel but yields no meaningful relief for the class is ‘no better than a racket.’ If the class settlement does not provide ‘effectual relief’ to the class and its ‘principal effect’ is to ‘induce the defendants to pay the class’s lawyers enough to make them go away,’ then the class representatives have failed in their duty . . . to ‘fairly and adequately protect the interests of the class.’ . . . ‘No class action settlement that yields zero benefits for the class should be approved, and a class action that seeks only worthless benefits for the class should be dismissed out of hand.’”
