§Why CasetextPricing

Lonardo et al v. Travelers Property Casualty Insurance Company et al

Motion for class certification , Preliminary Approval of Proposed Class Settlement, and Approval of Notice Plan

23 Cited authorities

  1. Amchem Prods., Inc. v. Windsor

    521 U.S. 591 (1997)   Cited 6,955 times   69 Legal Analyses
    Holding that courts are "bound to enforce" Rule 23's certification requirements, even where it means decertifying a class after they had reached a settlement agreement and submitted it to the court for approval

  2. Oppenheimer Fund, Inc. v. Sanders

    437 U.S. 340 (1978)   Cited 4,393 times   20 Legal Analyses
    Holding that that the production of putative class members' names pursuant to Federal Rule 26 was not "within the scope of legitimate discovery."

  3. Hanlon v. Chrysler Corp.

    150 F.3d 1011 (9th Cir. 1998)   Cited 3,052 times   16 Legal Analyses
    Holding that " common nucleus of facts and potential legal remedies dominate[d]" over "idiosyncratic differences between state consumer protection laws" where a nationwide class of minivan buyers’ claims turned on "questions of [the manufacturer’s] prior knowledge of the [vehicle’s] deficiency, the design defect, and a damages remedy"

  4. In re Prudential Insurance Company

    148 F.3d 283 (3d Cir. 1998)   Cited 1,365 times   8 Legal Analyses
    Holding the district court acted well within its discretion in denying an objector's request for discovery where the objector was able to present his arguments to the court during the fairness hearing and where the court found the objector "had ample opportunity to avail himself of the substantial discovery provided to Lead Counsel but failed to do so, and that additional discovery was unnecessary because [the objector] focused primarily on legal issues"

  5. Officers for Justice v. Civil Serv. Comm'n

    688 F.2d 615 (9th Cir. 1982)   Cited 1,126 times   2 Legal Analyses
    Holding a settlement must stand or fall in its entirety because a district court cannot "delete, modify or substitute certain provisions"

  6. International Union, United Automobile, Aerospace, & Agricultural Implement Workers of America v. General Motors Corp.

    497 F.3d 615 (6th Cir. 2007)   Cited 457 times   4 Legal Analyses
    Finding the Court "must give 'undiluted, even heightened, attention' to its protections before certifying a settlement-only class—one formed just for the purpose of settlement, not for litigation."

  7. Mace v. Van Ru Credit Corp.

    109 F.3d 338 (7th Cir. 1997)   Cited 496 times   2 Legal Analyses
    Holding that in reviewing a state claim pursuant to supplemental jurisdiction, federal courts apply state substantive law and federal procedural law

  8. Girsh v. Jepson

    521 F.2d 153 (3d Cir. 1975)   Cited 687 times   6 Legal Analyses
    In Girsh v. Jepson, 521 F.2d 153 (3d Cir.1975), we set out nine factors that courts should consider when deciding whether to approve a settlement.

  9. Torrisi v. Tucson Elec. Power Co.

    8 F.3d 1370 (9th Cir. 1993)   Cited 386 times   1 Legal Analyses
    Holding that we review adequacy de novo

  10. In re AT&T Corp.

    455 F.3d 160 (3d Cir. 2006)   Cited 233 times
    Holding that "[t]he District Court did not abuse its discretion in concluding that in light of the risks of establishing liability and damages, the $100 million settlement was an 'excellent' result," despite the fact that the settlement likely provided compensation for only 4% of the total damages claimed

  11. Rule 23 - Class Actions

    Fed. R. Civ. P. 23   Cited 34,939 times   1234 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"