§Why CasetextPricing

Golden Star, Inc. v. Mass Mutual Life Insurance Co.

MEMORANDUM in Support re Consent MOTION for Settlement - Preliminary Approval

17 Cited authorities

  1. Eisen v. Carlisle Jacquelin

    417 U.S. 156 (1974)   Cited 3,760 times   22 Legal Analyses
    Holding that individual notice to class members identifiable through reasonable efforts is mandatory in (b) actions

  2. In re Thirteen Appeals Arising Out of the San Juan Dupont Plaza Hotel Fire Litigation

    56 F.3d 295 (1st Cir. 1995)   Cited 165 times
    Holding that in common fund cases, the court "may calculate counsel fees either on a percentage of the fund basis or by fashioning a lodestar," and explaining that "time logged is still relevant to the court's inquiry" even under the former method, because "time records tend to illuminate the attorneys' role in the creation of the fund, and, thus, inform the court's inquiry into the reasonableness of a particular percentage"

  3. In re Pharmaceutical Indus Average Wholesale

    588 F.3d 24 (1st Cir. 2009)   Cited 95 times
    Holding that district court could incorporate by reference its prior orders when expanding a class

  4. City Partnership Co. v. Atlantic Acquisition

    100 F.3d 1041 (1st Cir. 1996)   Cited 78 times
    Holding the court considers whether the parties conducted discovery, engaged in arms-length bargaining, and used an experienced mediator before reaching a settlement

  5. Leimkuehler v. Am. United Life Ins. Co.

    713 F.3d 905 (7th Cir. 2013)   Cited 45 times   3 Legal Analyses
    Finding no abuse of discretion in use of “substantially justified” test

  6. In re Relafen Antitrust Litigation

    231 F.R.D. 52 (D. Mass. 2005)   Cited 53 times   1 Legal Analyses
    Finding a "multiplier of 2.02" to be "appropriate" based on comparison of cases

  7. In Re Tyco International, Ltd.

    535 F. Supp. 2d 249 (D.N.H. 2007)   Cited 49 times
    Finding that "[t]he reaction of the class to the settlement has been almost entirely positive" where "[n]one of the institutional investors have objected to the size of the settlement"

  8. Hochstadt v. Boston Scientific Corp.

    708 F. Supp. 2d 95 (D. Mass. 2010)   Cited 20 times
    In Hochstadt v. Boston Scientific Corp., 708 F. Supp. 2d 95, 105 n. 12 (D. Mass. 2010), the district court found First American "unpersuasive" and, instead, looked to the district court's opinion in Stanford v.Foamex L.P., 263 F.R.D. 156, 173 (E.D. Pa. 2009), that "the availability of an individual account claim under § 502(a)(2) does not alleviate the concerns cited by the numerous courts that have certified ERISA class actions pursuant to Rule 23(b)(1)(B) in situations where claims on behalf of the Plan are identical to those on behalf of an individual account."

  9. Healthcare Strategies, Inc. v. Ing Life Ins. & Annuity Co.

    CIVIL ACTION NO. 3:11-CV-282 (JCH) (D. Conn. Jan. 18, 2012)   Cited 17 times
    Denying motion to strike jury demand on ERISA claim for compensation for losses to the plans that result from alleged breach of fiduciary duty

  10. Ruppert v. Principal Life Ins. Co.

    705 F.3d 839 (8th Cir. 2013)   Cited 11 times   1 Legal Analyses
    Holding that a consent judgment was not final where it incorporated a settlement agreement that permitted the appellant to reinstate his settled claims if he was successful in appealing an earlier adverse ruling

  11. Rule 23 - Class Actions

    Fed. R. Civ. P. 23   Cited 34,815 times   1232 Legal Analyses
    Holding that, to certify a class, the court must find that "questions of law or fact common to class members predominate over any questions affecting only individual members"

  12. Section 1001 - Congressional findings and declaration of policy

    29 U.S.C. § 1001   Cited 20,502 times   58 Legal Analyses
    Noting that ERISA was enacted “to protect ... employee benefit plans and their beneficiaries”