An Eleventh Circuit panel recently vacated two district court orders after sending the parties to mediation, and after the parties’ conditioned settlement on vacatur of the orders. In Hartford Casualty Insurance Company v. Crum & Forster Specialty Insurance Company, after being ordered to mediation a second time by the appellate panel, the parties reached a settlement contingent on the district court’s vacating its orders on summary judgment and attorney’s fees. On ... Keep Reading »
Archives for July 2016
Tendering Funds to Support Unaccepted Offer of Judgment Still Does Not Moot Case
On July 6, the Sixth Circuit addressed a question apparently left open by the Supreme Court in its recent Campbell-Ewald case. In Campbell-Ewald, the Supreme Court ruled that an unaccepted Rule 68 offer of judgment did not moot class claims when no motion for class certification is pending. A plaintiff who rejects a rule 68 offer of tender extinguishes the offer. The court did not address, however, whether an actual tender of funds to a class plaintiff extinguished ... Keep Reading »
A Tale of Two Decertification Motions
The Seventh and Eighth Circuits both addressed motions to decertify classes the week of July 5—with divergent results. These cases illustrate the deference afforded district courts’ class certification determinations. Both courts refused to find the trial courts’ decertification decisions to constitute an abuse of discretion. They also illustrate the importance of a sensitivity to the requirements of the specific cause of action, which themselves may dictate whether a ... Keep Reading »
Declined: Second Circuit Panel Shreds Visa and MasterCard Antitrust Settlement
A Second Circuit panel rejected the settlement reached between defendants Visa, MasterCard, and various banks, and plaintiffs, approximately 12 million merchants who alleged the principally identical network rules of Visa and MasterCard were anti-competitive in contravention of Section 1 of the Sherman Act. The Second Circuit held that class plaintiffs were inadequately represented in violation of Rule 23(a)(4) and the Due Process Clause. After nearly 10 years of ... Keep Reading »
Court Orders Additional Notice to Class Regarding Counsel’s Request for Fees Based on Work Performed Following Initial Fee Award
The Northern District of Illinois vacated its grant of fees to class counsel for work performed following an initial fee award, finding that Rule 23(h) required notice to the class regarding counsel’s new fee request, even though the total attorneys’ fees awarded were within the range disclosed in the original class notice. As discussed in a prior post, the Seventh Circuit affirmed the initial award of fees to class counsel, notwithstanding that the settlement included a ... Keep Reading »