Victory in Dewey v. Volkswagen!
The Center for Class Action Fairness LLC announced today its victory in the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit objecting to a class action settlement that arbitrarily froze out over a million class members from meaningful recovery while paying the attorneys over $9.2 million.
Cy pres in the First and Third Circuits
Coincidentally, the same day, the Center for Class Action Fairness filed its opening brief relating to the yet-to-be-proposed multi-million-dollar cy pres distribution in In re Baby Products.
March Updates
If you listen to one oral argument from March 27, well, I have to say that you need to listen to Paul Clement's performance in HHS v. Florida. But if you have time for a second oral argument, and you have a hankering for Third Circuit class action action, I'd be curious about your thoughts of the argument in Dewey v. Volkswagen. See also. Following up on our earlier post, the Third Circuit denied the motion for…
_%E2%80%93_Frontansicht,_1._Juni_2013,_Ratingen.jpg){kind=link}
Deposition fun in the Bluetooth case
It had been a few years since I took a deposition, so it was refreshing to see that I wasn't as rusty as I was worried I'd be.
Two important appellate briefs filed this week
The fundamental point—shareholder derivative suits should not be permitted to be maintained when they are designed to benefit the attorneys, rather than the shareholders—remains valid, and we believe this is the first case to present this principle in the shareholder derivative context.
Mazie Slater misquotes a case
In Dewey v. Volkswagen, the parties negotiated and the district court approved a settlement that violates Supreme Court and Third Circuit precedent, which makes reversal likely. What's a class counsel to do? Make up new precedent!
Apple Magsafe class action settlement objection
We've objected to the Apple Magsafe class action settlement, which was recently criticized by AtlanticWire. Details at Point of Law.
Sixth Circuit brief in Pampers Dry Max class action
Details at Point of Law. Fortunately, Procter & Gamble is not my client, as they will be exceedingly unimpressed that we mortifyingly spelled their name wrong throughout the brief. At least the law is right.
Ninth Circuit briefing in In re HP Inkjet complete
See if you can spot the big math error in the HP brief before you read the reply brief.
- Go to the previous page
- 1
- …
- 35
- 36
- 37
- 38
- 39
- 40
- 41
- …
- 43
- Go to the next page