Honeywell Jersey City Settlement
www.honeywelljerseycitysettlement.com

Welcome to the Honeywell Jersey City Settlement Website

Administration Status

On May 26, 2016, the sole class member who objected to the settlement filed, through her attorneys, an Appeal of the Order of the District Court approving the settlement.

On June 29, 2017, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit issued an Opinion and entered a Judgment affirming the District Court’s decision to certify the class for settlement purposes, and approving the settlement as fair and adequate. This Opinion also affirmed the District Court’s approval of the award of attorneys’ fees. At the same time, this Opinion vacated the District Court’s approval of costs and remanded the case back to the District Court for a more complete explanation of its decision approving those costs.

Pursuant to Federal of Appellate Procedure 40(a) anyone who seeks a rehearing from the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit regarding its decision of June 29, 2017 must file a written petition for rehearing with that Court no later than July 14, 2017, and, furthermore, pursuant to Rule 13.1 of the Supreme Court of the United States anyone who seeks a discretionary review by the Supreme Court regarding the June 29, 2017 decision by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit must file a written petition for certiorari with the Clerk of the Supreme Court no later than September 28, 2017.

On September 13, 2017, Class Counsel filed a Motion Seeking an Award of Reasonable Costs and a memorandum of law in support of that motion. The amount of costs sought is the same as the amount sought in the Joint Motion for Final Approval of Class Action Settlement, filed on September 3, 2015.

Also on September 13, 2017, Objector Maureen Chandra filed a stipulation stating that she will not object or seek further review if the Court approves Class Counsel’s Motion Seeking an Award of Reasonable Costs. The stipulation also states that Objector Chandra will not seek a writ of certiorari to the Supreme Court of the United States regarding the Third Circuit’s June 29, 2017 decision in this matter, and has decided not to move forward with her prior objection.

On September 22, 2017, counsel for Objector Maureen Chandra filed a motion for attorney’s fees. Class Counsel has agreed to pay Objector’s attorney’s fees entirely from Class Counsel’s own fee award. An award of attorney’s fees to Objector’s counsel will not decrease the amount of money to be distributed to members of the Honeywell Classes.

On October 26, 2017, the district court ruled it would appoint a special master to assist it in providing a more detailed explanation of its reasoning regarding reimbursement of class counsel for case costs, as required by the decision of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit. The district court took this step over Class Counsel’s objection that doing so may delay distribution of settlement funds and reduce the damages recovered by class members, because of the expenses associated with a special master.

On December 5, 2017, the Court appointed a special master to make recommendations on the issue of class counsel’s expenses. The special master’s recommendations to the court are due March 5, 2018, after which the Court is expected to resolve the issue of class counsel’s expenses—the sole remaining issue in the case with respect to the Honeywell Classes.

On May 29, 2018, following appointment of a special master in 2017, the Court entered Orders granting Class Counsel’s Motion for Payment of Reasonable Costs & Distribution of the Settlement Fund, as well as granting the Objector’s Motion for Attorney Fees which will not be paid from the settlement funds allocated to the Class. Both of these documents can be viewed on the Court Documents section of this site. Pursuant to the terms of the Settlement Agreement and Order, distribution occurred on July 10, 2018.

All of the foregoing documents are available under the “Court Documents” link above.