Does anyone know whether the Kasky v. Nike settlement requires court approval under CA's civil procedure code? Press reports of the litigation suggested that the plaintiff sought monetary relief for the class of purchasers of Nike products alleged to have been mislead by Nike statements and an injunction requiring Nike to engage in corrective speech, but the settlement appears to offer no relief to the purported class and appears to require no corrective speech. Though Nike may have many reasons for spending money to monitor conditions abroad, and though that may be seen to be a socially desirable outcome, it is not clear how, if at all, the settlement is responsive to a misrepresentation claim brought on behalf of Nike consumers. The plaintiff did not represent overseas Nike employees or oveseas employees of Nike contractors; he represented purchasers misled by Nike. A court charged with conducting a fairness hearing to approve a settlement akin to the hearing required in federal class actions by Fed. R. Civ. P. 23(e) reasonably might decline to approve a settlement that offers no relief to the putative class, especially if it offers monetary relief to either the plaintiff or counsel for plaintiff.
Michael R. Masinter 3305 College Avenue Nova Southeastern University Fort Lauderdale, Fl. 33314 Shepard Broad Law Center (954) 262-6151 [EMAIL PROTECTED] Chair, ACLU of Florida Legal Panel
