38 Cited authorities

Christianson v. Colt Indus. Operating Corp.
486 U.S. 800 (1988) Cited 3,140 times 21 Legal Analyses
Holding that the appeal belonged before the regional circuit because the claims did not arise under patent law
Jones v. GN Netcom, Inc.
654 F.3d 935 (9th Cir. 2011) Cited 1,472 times 7 Legal Analyses
Holding that district courts should "award only that amount of fees that is reasonable in relation to the results obtained," even where counting all hours reasonably spent would produce a larger fees award
Staton v. Boeing Co.
327 F.3d 938 (9th Cir. 2003) Cited 1,939 times 6 Legal Analyses
Holding that "named plaintiffs ... are eligible for reasonable incentive payments" in addition to reimbursement "for their substantiated litigation expenses, and identifiable services rendered to the class directly under the supervision of class counsel"
Schindler Elevator v. U.S. ex Rel. Kirk
563 U.S. 401 (2011) Cited 341 times 11 Legal Analyses
Holding that the relator stated an FCA claim where the contractor “filed false ... reports, necessarily knowing that they were false because [it] in fact had no mechanism in place to identify covered [individuals]. It did so in order to procure contracts and obtain payment under existing contracts, as it could do neither without filing the reports.”
In re Gen. Motors Corp. Pick-Up Truck Fuel Tank
55 F.3d 768 (3d Cir. 1995) Cited 1,145 times 4 Legal Analyses
Holding that nothing in Rule 23 "can be read to authorize separate, liberalized criteria for settlement classes"
Churchill Village v. General Electric
361 F.3d 566 (9th Cir. 2004) Cited 748 times 1 Legal Analyses
Holding that approval of a settlement that received 45 objections and 500 opt-outs out of 90,000 class members was proper
Resnick v. Frank
779 F.3d 934 (9th Cir. 2015) Cited 462 times 4 Legal Analyses
Holding that awards cumulatively representing 0.17% of the settlement fund were reasonable
Radcliffe v. Experian Info. Sols. Inc.
715 F.3d 1157 (9th Cir. 2013) Cited 422 times 3 Legal Analyses
Holding that the “incentive awards significantly exceeded in amount what absent class members could expect upon settlement approval” and thus “created a patent divergence of interests between the named representatives and the class”
In re Mercury Interactive Corp.
618 F.3d 988 (9th Cir. 2010) Cited 425 times 3 Legal Analyses
Holding that under Rule 23(h), class members must be given a full and fair opportunity to examine and object to attorneys' fees motion
Koz v. Kellogg Co.
697 F.3d 858 (9th Cir. 2012) Cited 330 times 4 Legal Analyses
Holding that there must be "a driving nexus between the plaintiff class and the cy pres beneficiaries" and that the cy pres award must be "guided by the objectives of the underlying statute and the interests of the silent class members,... and must not benefit a group too remote from the plaintiff class"
Rule 23 - Class Actions
Fed. R. Civ. P. 23 Cited 35,144 times 1237 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"
Section 501 - Exemption from tax on corporations, certain trusts, etc
26 U.S.C. § 501 Cited 3,234 times 293 Legal Analyses
Granting tax-exempt status to qualified pension plans
Rule 7.1 - Disclosure Statement
Fed. R. Civ. P. 7.1 Cited 1,041 times 12 Legal Analyses
Governing corporate disclosure statements
Section 1712 - Coupon settlements
28 U.S.C. § 1712 Cited 147 times 18 Legal Analyses
Providing that "the portion of any attorney's fee award to class counsel that is attributable to the award of the coupons shall be based on the value to class members of the coupons that are redeemed"
Section 1714 - Protection against discrimination based on geographic location
28 U.S.C. § 1714 Cited 8 times 2 Legal Analyses
Prohibiting court approval of a proposed settlement that provides for payment of greater sums to some class members "solely on the basis" that they "are located in closer geographic proximity to the court"

In Re: Easysaver Rewards Litigation

38 Cited authorities

Holding that the appeal belonged before the regional circuit because the claims did not arise under patent law

Holding that district courts should "award only that amount of fees that is reasonable in relation to the results obtained," even where counting all hours reasonably spent would produce a larger fees award

Holding that "named plaintiffs ... are eligible for reasonable incentive payments" in addition to reimbursement "for their substantiated litigation expenses, and identifiable services rendered to the class directly under the supervision of class counsel"

Holding that nothing in Rule 23 "can be read to authorize separate, liberalized criteria for settlement classes"

Holding that approval of a settlement that received 45 objections and 500 opt-outs out of 90,000 class members was proper

Holding that awards cumulatively representing 0.17% of the settlement fund were reasonable

Holding that the “incentive awards significantly exceeded in amount what absent class members could expect upon settlement approval” and thus “created a patent divergence of interests between the named representatives and the class”

Holding that under Rule 23(h), class members must be given a full and fair opportunity to examine and object to attorneys' fees motion

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"

Granting tax-exempt status to qualified pension plans

Governing corporate disclosure statements

Providing that "the portion of any attorney's fee award to class counsel that is attributable to the award of the coupons shall be based on the value to class members of the coupons that are redeemed"

Prohibiting court approval of a proposed settlement that provides for payment of greater sums to some class members "solely on the basis" that they "are located in closer geographic proximity to the court"