About | HeinOnline Law Journal Library | HeinOnline Law Journal Library | HeinOnline
LOG IN
LOG IN

Case Citations (March 2016 through June 2016) [i] (2016)

handle is hein.ali/aggregate0016 and id is 1 raw text is: PRINCIPLES OF THE LAW OF AGGREGATE LITIGATION CHAPTER 2. AGGREGATE ADJUDICATION TOPIC 2. SUBSTANTIVE LAW AS A CONSTRAINT ON AGGREGATION § 2.05 Choice of Law S.D.Fla.2015. Subsec. (b) quot. in sup., quot. in case quot. in sup. Bank customers brought a multidistrict action against bank, alleging that defendant wrongfully extracted overdraft fees and failed to disclose and actively misrepresented its overdraft policies. This court granted plaintiffs' motion for class certification, holding that plaintiffs met their burden of showing that there were common issues that predominated within the proposed subclasses. Citing Principles of the Law of Aggregate Litigation § 2.05, the court explained that it could certify multistate classes even though the claims or issues were subject to different bodies of law that were not the same in functional content, because there were a limited number of patterns, which could be managed by subclassing. In re Checking Account Overdraft Litigation, 307 F.R.D. 656, 674, 680. CHAPTER 3. AGGREGATE SETTLEMENTS TOPIC 2. CLASS SETTLEMENTS § 3.05 Judicial Review of the Fairness of a Class Settlement C.A.1, 2015. Com. (a) quot. in sup. In a class-action lawsuit for securities fraud brought by investors against corporation, class members who would have received no allocation of a proposed settlement award filed objections about the length of time given to object and the amount of attorney's fees awarded to class counsel. The district court approved the settlement. This court affirmed, holding that the district court acted within its discretion in rejecting the objections. The court explained that the district court remedied any defect in notice by delaying the hearing and allowing objections to be made after the deadline, and any changes to the attorney's fees award would not benefit objectors, because they did not contest the allocation formula. Citing Principles of the Law of Aggregate Litigation § 3.05, the court noted that, in some cases, the amounts involved per class member could be so small that no class member had an incentive to object to a settlement, but, here, the few objections that were filed did not concern the amount of recovery. Hill v. State Street Corp., 794 F.3d 227, 229. § 3.07 Cy Pres Settlements A L I For earlier citations, see the Appendices, Supplements, or Pocket Parts, if any, that correspond to the subject matter under examination.

What Is HeinOnline?

HeinOnline is a subscription-based resource containing thousands of academic and legal journals from inception; complete coverage of government documents such as U.S. Statutes at Large, U.S. Code, Federal Register, Code of Federal Regulations, U.S. Reports, and much more. Documents are image-based, fully searchable PDFs with the authority of print combined with the accessibility of a user-friendly and powerful database. For more information, request a quote or trial for your organization below.



Contact us for annual subscription options:

Contact Us

Already a HeinOnline Subscriber?

Log In

profiles profiles most