Objection to Class Action Settlement - District of Columbia

OBJECTION OF [CLASS MEMBER NAME] TO PROPOSED CLASS ACTION SETTLEMENT

SUPERIOR COURT OF THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA

CIVIL DIVISION

Case No.: [________________________________]

Calendar / Assigned Judge: Hon. [________________________________]

OBJECTION OF [CLASS MEMBER NAME] TO PROPOSED CLASS ACTION SETTLEMENT

[________________________________] ("Objector"), a member of the Settlement Class in the above-captioned action, respectfully submits this Objection to the proposed class action settlement (the "Settlement") and to any related request for attorney's fees, costs, and class representative service payments, pursuant to D.C. Super. Ct. Civ. R. 23(e)(5). In support, Objector states as follows.

I. OBJECTOR'S IDENTITY, ADDRESS, AND PROOF OF CLASS MEMBERSHIP

Full Legal Name: [________________________________]

Mailing Address:
[________________________________]
[________________________________]

Telephone: [____] · Email: [____]

Proof of Class Membership. Objector is a member of the Settlement Class because [________________________________] (e.g., "Objector purchased [product] in the District of Columbia on or about [__/__/____]" / "Objector received the class notice bearing Notice/Claimant ID [____]"). In support, Objector attaches and relies on:

☐ Class notice / Notice or Claimant ID: [________________________________]
☐ Receipt(s) or proof of purchase or transaction
☐ Account, billing, or contract record
☐ Correspondence with the Defendant
☐ Other: [________________________________]

Objector has not requested exclusion (opt-out) from the Settlement Class and remains a Class Member entitled to object.

Scope of this Objection (required by D.C. Super. Ct. Civ. R. 23(e)(5)(A)). This Objection applies to:

☐ Only the Objector;
☐ A specific subset of the Class, namely [________________________________]; or
☐ The entire Class.

II. STATEMENT REGARDING APPEARANCE AT THE FAIRNESS HEARING

☐ Objector (and/or Objector's counsel) INTENDS to appear at the Fairness/Final Approval Hearing set for [__/__/____] at [____] a.m./p.m. and requests permission to be heard.

☐ Objector DOES NOT intend to appear and submits this Objection for the Court's consideration on the papers.

☐ Objector will appear through counsel, [________________________________] (D.C. Bar No. [____]).

III. THE OBJECTIONS

Under D.C. Super. Ct. Civ. R. 23(e)(2), the Court may approve the Settlement only after a hearing and only on finding that it is fair, reasonable, and adequate after considering whether (A) the class representatives and class counsel have adequately represented the Class; (B) the proposal was negotiated at arm's length; (C) the relief provided for the Class is adequate, taking into account the costs, risks, and delay of trial and appeal, the effectiveness of any proposed method of distributing relief (including claims processing), the terms of any proposed attorney's-fee award (including timing of payment), and any agreement required to be identified under Rule 23(e)(3); and (D) the proposal treats Class Members equitably relative to each other.

Objector contends the Settlement fails that standard and states with specificity (D.C. Super. Ct. Civ. R. 23(e)(5)(A)) the following grounds (check all that apply and complete the supporting argument):

☐ Inadequate relief (Rule 23(e)(2)(C)). The relief is inadequate because [________________________________]. The Settlement Fund of $[____] represents only approximately [____]% of the Class's realistic recovery; the estimated per-member payment of $[____] is disproportionately low; and/or the method of distributing relief is ineffective because [________________________________].

☐ Excessive attorney's fees / service payments (Rule 23(e)(2)(C)(iii); Rule 23(h)). The requested attorney's fees of $[____] ([____]% of the Fund) and/or service payment(s) of $[____] are excessive relative to the benefit actually delivered to the Class because [________________________________].

☐ Unfair allocation or overbroad release (Rule 23(e)(2)(D)). The plan of allocation treats Class Members inequitably because [________________________________]; and/or the release is overbroad because it surrenders claims [beyond those pleaded / unrelated in time or subject matter / against non-parties], specifically [________________________________].

☐ Defective notice (Rule 23(c)(2); Rule 23(e)(1)). The class notice failed to provide the best notice practicable / plain-language disclosure because [it did not reach a substantial portion of the Class / did not plainly describe the released claims, deadlines, or the right to object / used an inadequate method], specifically [________________________________].

☐ Improper cy pres / residual funds. Any distribution of residual or unclaimed funds to [________________________________] is improper because the recipient lacks a substantial nexus to the Class and the claims, or because funds reachable by Class Members are being diverted; D.C. Rule 23 contains no codified cy pres directive, and under the Rule 23 Comment the Court should first prefer a distribution closely related to the underlying purpose (and may instead allocate residual funds to the D.C. Bar Foundation or other local bar associations), contrary to the proposal here, specifically [________________________________].

☐ Collusion / lack of arm's-length negotiation (Rule 23(e)(2)(A), (B)). The Settlement bears indicia of self-dealing or a non-arm's-length / reverse-auction negotiation because [________________________________] (e.g., a "clear-sailing" fee clause, a fee-reversion or "kicker" clause, simultaneous fee negotiation, or a disclosed side agreement under Rule 23(e)(3)).

☐ Inadequate representation (Rule 23(e)(2)(A)). The Class Representative(s) and/or Class Counsel did not adequately represent the Class because [________________________________].

☐ Other: [________________________________]

Supporting Argument

[________________________________]

[________________________________]

Because the Settlement is not fair, reasonable, and adequate under D.C. Super. Ct. Civ. R. 23(e)(2), the Court should decline to approve it, or should approve it only as modified to cure the deficiencies identified above.

IV. DOCUMENTS AND EVIDENCE TO BE PRESENTED

Objector relies on, and (if appearing) may present, the following:

Exhibits:

1. [________________________________]
2. [________________________________]

Witnesses (if appearing):

1. [________________________________]
2. [________________________________]

Objector reserves the right to supplement this list consistent with the Court's order and to rely on the papers, arguments, and evidence presented by any other objector and by the parties.

V. RESERVATION OF RIGHTS AND REQUEST FOR RELIEF

Objector reserves all rights, including the right to be heard at the Fairness Hearing, to seek settlement-related discovery to the extent the Court permits, to supplement or amend this Objection, to join in the objections of other Class Members, and to appeal from any order or judgment approving the Settlement. Objector acknowledges that, under D.C. Super. Ct. Civ. R. 23(e)(5)(A), this Objection may be withdrawn only with the Court's approval, and that, under Rule 23(e)(5)(B), no payment or other consideration may be provided to Objector or Objector's counsel in connection with forgoing or withdrawing this Objection, or forgoing, dismissing, or abandoning an appeal, unless the Court approves it after a hearing. If approval is sought after an appeal is docketed in the District of Columbia Court of Appeals, the indicative-ruling procedure of Rule 62.1 applies (Rule 23(e)(5)(C)). Submitting this Objection does not otherwise waive any of Objector's rights.

WHEREFORE, Objector respectfully requests that the Court:

☐ DECLINE to approve the proposed Settlement as not fair, reasonable, and adequate under Rule 23(e)(2);

☐ APPROVE the Settlement only if modified to: [________________________________];

☐ REDUCE the requested attorney's fees to $[____] and/or the service payment(s) to $[____];

☐ NARROW the release to exclude [________________________________];

☐ DIRECT residual funds to a recipient consistent with the underlying purpose of the litigation (or to the D.C. Bar Foundation);

☐ Grant such other relief as the Court deems just.

Respectfully submitted,

Dated: [__/__/____]

[________________________________]
[CLASS MEMBER NAME], Objector

[________________________________]
[ATTORNEY NAME] (D.C. Bar No. [________])
Attorney for Objector [CLASS MEMBER NAME]
[Firm Name]
[Address] · [Washington, D.C. ZIP]
Telephone: [____] · Email: [____]

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

I certify that on [__/__/____], I filed the foregoing Objection with the Clerk of the Superior Court of the District of Columbia, Civil Division, and served a copy on the following by the method(s) indicated, consistent with the Court's order directing notice:

Filed with the Court:
☐ CaseFileXpress / eFileDC electronic filing (D.C. Super. Ct. Civ. R. 5; mandatory e-filing where applicable)
☐ Hand delivery to the Clerk
☐ First-class U.S. Mail

Clerk of the Court, Superior Court of the District of Columbia, Civil Division
[Courthouse address]

Served on Class Counsel:
☐ Electronic service ☐ Email ☐ First-class U.S. Mail

[________________________________]

Served on Defendant's Counsel:
☐ Electronic service ☐ Email ☐ First-class U.S. Mail

[________________________________]

Served on the Settlement Administrator (if the notice so directs):

[________________________________]

[________________________________]
Signature

District of Columbia Practice Notes

• Governing rule. District of Columbia class actions proceed under D.C. Super. Ct. Civ. R. 23 in the Superior Court, Civil Division. By the Rule 23 Comment, the rule is "identical to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23" and "incorporates the 2018 federal amendments," with a local modification only to section (f) (appeals). Federal Rule 23 case law is therefore highly persuasive.
• Modern settlement-approval framework. Rule 23(e)(2) permits approval only after a hearing and only on finding the proposal fair, reasonable, and adequate, after considering the enumerated factors: (A) adequacy of representation; (B) arm's-length negotiation; (C) adequacy of relief — costs/risks/delay of trial and appeal, effectiveness of distribution (including claims processing), terms of any fee award (including timing), and any agreement identified under Rule 23(e)(3); and (D) equitable treatment of class members. Brief the objection to these specific factors.
• Objection content — state with specificity. Rule 23(e)(5)(A) requires that the objection state whether it applies to the objector, a subset of the class, or the entire class, and state with specificity the grounds for the objection. Conclusory objections risk being disregarded — tie each ground to a Rule 23(e)(2) factor with supporting facts and authority.
• Objection deadline / content beyond the rule. The rule sets the specificity requirement; the deadline, filing/mailing destination, and any "intent to appear" requirement come from the court's notice/approval order and the approved class notice. Follow them exactly.
• Must-appear rule. D.C. Rule 23(e)(5) does not require a personal appearance to preserve an objection; appearance is governed by the court's order. If you wish to be heard, comply with any intent-to-appear directive.
• Withdrawal-for-payment (key D.C. feature). Under Rule 23(e)(5)(A), an objection may be withdrawn only with the court's approval; and under Rule 23(e)(5)(B), no payment or other consideration may be provided in connection with forgoing/withdrawing an objection, or forgoing/dismissing/abandoning an appeal, unless the court approves after a hearing. Under Rule 23(e)(5)(C), if such approval has not been obtained before an appeal is docketed in the D.C. Court of Appeals, the indicative-ruling procedure of Rule 62.1 applies while the appeal is pending. This restrains "objector blackmail."
• Fees. A class member may object to the attorney's-fee motion under Rule 23(h)(2); the fee claim is made by motion under Rule 54 and the court must find facts and state conclusions under Rule 52(a).
• Appeals (D.C.-specific). Unlike the federal discretionary 23(f) petition, Rule 23(f) provides that an appeal from a Superior Court order granting or denying class certification may be permitted in accordance with D.C. Code § 11-721(d) and the D.C. Court of Appeals Rules — a change adopted in light of Ford v. ChartOne, Inc., 834 A.2d 875 (D.C. 2003). An objector overruled at final approval may appeal from the approval judgment.
• Residual funds / cy pres. D.C. Rule 23 contains no codified cy pres directive. The Rule 23 Comment directs the court to use conventional principles of equity (pro rata distribution, reversion, escheat, or cy pres), to prefer a cy pres distribution "closely related to the original purpose," and notes the court may allocate residual funds to the D.C. Bar Foundation or other local bar associations. Object if the proposal diverts reachable funds or selects an improperly-tethered recipient.
• Notice / due process. Class notice must provide the best notice practicable under Rule 23(c)(2) in plain, easily understood language (U.S. mail, electronic, or other appropriate means), satisfying due process (Mullane; Phillips Petroleum Co. v. Shutts).
• Unsettled / flag. D.C. appellate gloss on the post-2018 Rule 23(e) is limited; federal authority is persuasive but not binding. Verify the current text of Rule 23 and conform to the court's approval order before filing.

Sources and References

• D.C. Super. Ct. Civ. R. 23 (full text and Comment; (e) settlement; (e)(2) factors; (e)(5)(A)–(C) objections; (f) appeals; (g)/(h) counsel and fees) — D.C. Courts
• D.C. Super. Ct. Civ. R. 23 via DC Civil Rules — https://www.nicerules.com/rule-23.html
• Ford v. ChartOne, Inc., 834 A.2d 875 (D.C. 2003); D.C. Code § 11-721(d)
• D.C. Super. Ct. Civ. R. 62.1 (indicative ruling while an appeal is pending)
• Fed. R. Civ. P. 23(e), (e)(2), (e)(5) (federal source of the 2018 amendments) — https://www.law.cornell.edu/rules/frcp/rule_23
• Phillips Petroleum Co. v. Shutts, 472 U.S. 797 (1985); Mullane v. Central Hanover Bank & Trust Co., 339 U.S. 306 (1950)

This template is for informational purposes only and does not constitute legal advice. D.C. Super. Ct. Civ. R. 23(e) (tracking the 2018 federal amendments) requires objections to state grounds with specificity, permits withdrawal only with court approval, and requires court approval after a hearing for any payment to an objector. Consult experienced District of Columbia class action counsel before filing.