McDonald v. Edward D. Jones & Co., L. P.

Filing 136

MEMORANDUM AND ORDER: IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Objector Shiyang Huang's pro se Motion to Enforce Settlement, Compel Accounting, Order Payment of Lost Interest of the Class, and Equitable Reduction of Class Counsel Fee 131 is DENIED. Signed by District Judge John A. Ross on 3/31/2021. (LNJ)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF MISSOURI
EASTERN DIVISION
VALESKA SCHULTZ, et al.,
Plaintiffs,
v.
EDWARD D. JONES & CO., L.P., et al.,
Defendants.

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

Case No. 4:16-cv-1346-JAR

MEMORANDUM AND ORDER
This matter is before the Court on Objector Shiyang Huang’s pro se Motion to Enforce
Settlement, Compel Accounting, Order Payment of Lost Interest of the Class, and Equitable
Reduction of Class Counsel Fee. (Doc. No. 131). Huang argues that Class Counsel breached its
fiduciary duty to the Class by failing to distribute the settlement funds for over one year and to
reimburse lost interest to the “$10 de minimis” class members. Huang also asks the Court to
reduce Class Counsel’s fee by the amount of interest earned on the class fund, i.e., $13,677, “to
increase the de minimis distribution of class fund for its failure to distribute one year ago.” The
motion is fully briefed and ready for disposition. For the following reasons, the motion will be
denied.
On April 22, 2019, this Court approved the settlement between the Class and Defendants.
(Doc. No. 112). Of a class of 74,121 individuals, three filed objections (Doc. Nos. 98, 103, 104),
which the Court overruled. Following final approval, Huang alone appealed to the Eighth Circuit
Court of Appeals, thereby delaying the Effective Date of Settlement under the terms of the
Court-approved Settlement Agreement. See Doc. No. 93-1 at ¶ 1.14 (The “Effective Date” is
delayed by an appeal until “all appeals, including petitions for review, rehearing, or certiorari,

and any proceedings resulting therefore, have been finally disposed of...”). On January 30, 2020,
the Eighth Circuit denied Huang’s appeal. Huang then petitioned the United States Supreme
Court for a writ of certiorari, which was denied on October 5, 2020. As a result, distributions to
the Class were on hold until the Effective Date of the Settlement 25 days later, on October 31,
2020. Sup. Ct. R. 44.
Plaintiffs state that since that date, Class Counsel, Defendants, the Settlement
Administrator, and Defendants’ recordkeepers have had to update class member information;
calculate the Distributable Settlement Amount to account for administrative costs and interest
earned on the Settlement Fund; allocate to each Class Member a share of the Distributable
Settlement Amount; and revise and re-allocate those amounts to progressively increase all Class
Members to at least a $10 distribution. Under the terms of the Settlement Agreement, interest
earned on the Settlement Fund is added to the total amount distributable to all Class Members
before calculating the minimum $10 distributions. (Doc. No. 93-1 at 53, Plan of Allocation ¶¶ 2–
4). Thus, Huang is not entitled to any additional interest on the $10 minimum distribution.
On March 30, 2021, Plaintiffs filed a declaration from Derek Smith, Director at KCC
Class Action Services, LLC, confirming that the Settlement Administrator has now completed
distributions to the Class Members. (Doc. Nos. 135, 135-1). Nothing in the record before the
Court suggests that the conduct of Class Counsel was not in the best interest of the Class. While
it was certainly his right to appeal, Huang cannot complain of delay in distributing settlement
funds when that delay was the result of his appeal.
Accordingly,

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Objector Shiyang Huang’s pro se Motion to Enforce
Settlement, Compel Accounting, Order Payment of Lost Interest of the Class, and Equitable
Reduction of Class Counsel Fee [131] is DENIED.

Dated this 31st day of March, 2021.

________________________________
JOHN A. ROSS
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE