Kruger v. Lely North America, Inc.
U.S. District Court, District of Minnesota
Kruger v. Lely North America, Inc.
Trial Court Opinion
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
DISTRICT OF MINNESOTA
JARED KRUGER, MARK VAN Case No. 0:20-cv-00629 (KMM/DTS)
ESSEN, LYNN KIRSCHBAUM,
DONNA and ROBERT KOON, and
SCHUMACHER DAIRY FARMS OF
PLAINVIEW LLC, on behalf of ORDER
themselves and all others similarly situated,
Plaintiffs,
v.
LELY NORTH AMERICA, INC.,
Defendant.
This matter is before the Court on Plaintiffs’ Consent Motion for Approval of
Settlement. [ECF 188.] The Court has approved the final settlement by separate order.
This Order addresses the request of one of the named plaintiffs, Jared Kruger, to modify
the agreed-upon settlement to increase his service award.
Mr. Kruger submitted a letter to the Court a few days ahead of the Final Approval
Hearing expressing his dissatisfaction with the final settlement and his concerns about the
process by which the settlement was achieved. He also submitted a letter from his father
detailing similar concerns. Mr. Kruger then appeared at the hearing and addressed the
Court. He advised the Court that he was not seeking to opt out of the settlement, nor to
contest or interfere with the settlement generally. As a named plaintiff and class
representative, he took seriously the fact that many class members would benefit from the
settlement and were waiting on their payments. But he expressed frustration at what he
and his family had experienced using the robotic milking machines. Mr. Kruger also
described dissatisfaction with the value of the cash payout to the class members, a number
that was lower than hoped for because so many class members chose to participate in the
settlement. He explained that he felt like he had been left out of the settlement negotiations.
And finally, he discussed that he believed he was essential to the success of the litigation
and to the achieving of any settlement at all, and therefore his service award should be
greater.
The Court appreciates that Mr. Kruger came to Court to express his concerns. But
the Court is unable to give him the relief he seeks. Courts considering class action
settlements have discretion on whether to approve a service award to a class representative.
Caligiuri v. Symantec Corp., 855 F.3d 860, 867 (8th Cir. 2017) (explaining the discretion
of courts to “grant service awards to named plaintiffs in class action suits to promote the
public policy of encouraging individuals to undertake the responsibility of representative
lawsuits”) (internal quotations omitted). The Court has not found any authority by which
it can increase such a payment. Nor would the Court be comfortable tinkering with one
part of a complex settlement by doing so. For instance, given that Mr. Kruger’s payment
is twice as high as any other class representative in this case and five times higher than
some, would the Court increase everyone’s payment or just his? And what part of the
settlement would be reduced to fund the increase to Mr. Kruger? The Court notes that,
according to its research, the $50,000 service award received by Mr. Kruger is far greater
than the average service award; indeed, the Court has never seen such a large award in any
of its prior class action cases. The Court is not suggesting that reducing the award is
required, but instead the Court observes that even if it had the authority to increase service
awards generally, it does not think it could use its discretion to increase an award this large.
Therefore, the Court respectfully declines Mr. Kruger’s request for the Court to
modify the settlement and increase his class representative award.
Date: September 1, 2023 s/Katherine Menendez
Katherine Menendez
United States District Judge Trial Court Opinion
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
DISTRICT OF MINNESOTA
JARED KRUGER, MARK VAN Case No. 0:20-cv-00629 (KMM/DTS)
ESSEN, LYNN KIRSCHBAUM,
DONNA and ROBERT KOON, and
SCHUMACHER DAIRY FARMS OF
PLAINVIEW LLC, on behalf of ORDER
themselves and all others similarly situated,
Plaintiffs,
v.
LELY NORTH AMERICA, INC.,
Defendant.
This matter is before the Court on Plaintiffs’ Consent Motion for Approval of
Settlement. [ECF 188.] The Court has approved the final settlement by separate order.
This Order addresses the request of one of the named plaintiffs, Jared Kruger, to modify
the agreed-upon settlement to increase his service award.
Mr. Kruger submitted a letter to the Court a few days ahead of the Final Approval
Hearing expressing his dissatisfaction with the final settlement and his concerns about the
process by which the settlement was achieved. He also submitted a letter from his father
detailing similar concerns. Mr. Kruger then appeared at the hearing and addressed the
Court. He advised the Court that he was not seeking to opt out of the settlement, nor to
contest or interfere with the settlement generally. As a named plaintiff and class
representative, he took seriously the fact that many class members would benefit from the
settlement and were waiting on their payments. But he expressed frustration at what he
and his family had experienced using the robotic milking machines. Mr. Kruger also
described dissatisfaction with the value of the cash payout to the class members, a number
that was lower than hoped for because so many class members chose to participate in the
settlement. He explained that he felt like he had been left out of the settlement negotiations.
And finally, he discussed that he believed he was essential to the success of the litigation
and to the achieving of any settlement at all, and therefore his service award should be
greater.
The Court appreciates that Mr. Kruger came to Court to express his concerns. But
the Court is unable to give him the relief he seeks. Courts considering class action
settlements have discretion on whether to approve a service award to a class representative.
Caligiuri v. Symantec Corp., 855 F.3d 860, 867 (8th Cir. 2017) (explaining the discretion
of courts to “grant service awards to named plaintiffs in class action suits to promote the
public policy of encouraging individuals to undertake the responsibility of representative
lawsuits”) (internal quotations omitted). The Court has not found any authority by which
it can increase such a payment. Nor would the Court be comfortable tinkering with one
part of a complex settlement by doing so. For instance, given that Mr. Kruger’s payment
is twice as high as any other class representative in this case and five times higher than
some, would the Court increase everyone’s payment or just his? And what part of the
settlement would be reduced to fund the increase to Mr. Kruger? The Court notes that,
according to its research, the $50,000 service award received by Mr. Kruger is far greater
than the average service award; indeed, the Court has never seen such a large award in any
of its prior class action cases. The Court is not suggesting that reducing the award is
required, but instead the Court observes that even if it had the authority to increase service
awards generally, it does not think it could use its discretion to increase an award this large.
Therefore, the Court respectfully declines Mr. Kruger’s request for the Court to
modify the settlement and increase his class representative award.
Date: September 1, 2023 s/Katherine Menendez
Katherine Menendez
United States District Judge Reference
- Status
- Unknown