California, United States of America
The following excerpt is from Choi v. Mario Badescu Skin Care, Inc., B257480 (Cal. App. 2016):
case. It reasonably assessed, given the personal injury claims were not adjudicated here, that the parties were not litigating or settling the physical consequences of adulterating the creams with drugs, and so the damages were purely economic. Third, as the McLaren Objectors were well aware, there is no certainty in litigation and defendants remain adamant that the complaint's allegations are not true. "[T]he merits of the underlying class claims are not a basis for upsetting the settlement of a class action; the operative word is 'settlement.' [Citations.]" (7-Eleven Owners, supra, 85 Cal.App.4th at p. 1150.) " '[I]t is the very uncertainty of outcome in litigation and avoidance of wasteful and expensive litigation that induce consensual settlements. The proposed settlement is not to be judged against a hypothetical or speculative measure of what might have been achieved by the negotiators.' " (Linney v. Cellular Alaska Partnership (9th Cir. 1998) 151 F.3d 1234, 1242.)12
The above passage should not be considered legal advice. Reliable answers to complex legal questions require comprehensive research memos. To learn more visit www.alexi.com.