For the life of me, I can't imagine why a defense attorney with the best interests of his client in mind wouldn't simply say: "You sued us, you defend the settlement. We're paying you hundreds of thousands of dollars to go away. My client shouldn't have to pay another penny into this case."
Unfortunately for the plaintiffs, not only did they sue in the Northern District of Illinois, they sued a corporation where I own shares.
In one sense, the decision is a partial victory for CCAF, yet I still feel disappointment.
In one sense, the decision is a partial victory for CCAF, yet I still feel disappointment.
Tuesday, the Center filed its opening brief appealing the approval of a class action settlement against AOL.
Today we filed our response brief; plaintiffs largely ignored the arguments we made earlier and instead made ad hominem complaints about some quotes that I gave a legal newspaper—when they weren't simply lying about what relevant Third Circuit precedent said.
All well and good, except that my particular notice letter arrived on June 28. That's because, though the settlement occurred on April 28, and the court approved notice on May 11, the parties didn't bother to ask brokers to provide a list of shareholders until June 1, and then, after receiving the list, didn't bother to mail the notice to tens of thousands of shareholders until June 22 or June 23.
CCAF filed its reply brief in the Bluetooth case yesterday.
Earlier this month, plaintiffs and defendants each filed appellees' briefs defending the district court's approval of the Bluetooth settlement against our appeal. We'll be filing our reply brief later this week; stay tuned.
Today, the Center for Class Action Fairness filed an objection on behalf of four class members, including one who gets nothing despite water leakage into the passenger compartment that required over $1000 of repairs.
