§Why CasetextPricing

MDL No. 1917 In Re: Cathode Ray Tube (CRT) Antitrust Litigation

RESPONSE

9 Cited authorities

  1. Pioneer Investment Services Company v. Brunswick Associates Limited Partnership

    507 U.S. 380 (1993)   Cited 7,715 times   14 Legal Analyses
    Holding that clients must be held accountable for the acts and omissions of their attorneys

  2. In re Phenylpropanolamine

    460 F.3d 1217 (9th Cir. 2006)   Cited 4,444 times   4 Legal Analyses
    Holding that "[f]ailing to produce documents" and "unreasonable delay" both support the court's finding of prejudice

  3. U.S. v. Torres

    372 F.3d 1159 (10th Cir. 2004)   Cited 294 times
    Holding that district court abused its discretion in finding excusable neglect because counsel confused the respective filing deadlines governing civil and criminal appeals

  4. Silber v. Mabon

    18 F.3d 1449 (9th Cir. 1994)   Cited 261 times   1 Legal Analyses
    Holding that Rule 23's "best notice practicable" requirement is satisfied by "what notice is reasonably certain to inform the absent members of the plaintiff class"

  5. In re Painewebber Ltd. Partner. Litigation

    147 F.3d 132 (2d Cir. 1998)   Cited 134 times
    Holding that the district court "reached the right conclusion when it declined to grant plaintiff an enlargement of the deadline date to opt out" and did not abuse its discretion by denying plaintiff's "motion to exclude himself from the Class nearly a year after the deadline to do so had expired"

  6. Kyle v. Campbell Soup Co

    28 F.3d 928 (9th Cir. 1994)   Cited 134 times
    Holding that district court abused its discretion by granting Rule 4 extension, when attorney had mistakenly believed that under Fed.R.Civ.P. 6(e) the Rule 4 period began three days after the judgment was mailed, because the rules were "nonambiguous"

  7. In re Gypsum Antitrust Cases

    565 F.2d 1123 (9th Cir. 1977)   Cited 75 times
    Affirming district judge's decision that he "would have discretion to permit a claim and allow a late claim when there's good and sufficient cause shown therefor"

  8. Demint v. NationsBank Corp.

    208 F.R.D. 639 (M.D. Fla. 2002)   Cited 14 times

    Class action defendant sought to enjoin separate suit brought by litigants who had failed to timely " opt out" of class action suit. The District Court, Merryday, J., held that: (1) pendency and continued prosecution of separate suit neither registered nor preserved litigants' election to " opt out" of related class action; (2) litigants' unexplained failure to timely deliver notice of their " opt out" election was not excusable; and (3) defendant did not waive right to enforce class action settlement

  9. Brannon v. Household Intern

    236 F. App'x 285 (9th Cir. 2007)

    Nos. 05-16205, 05-16335. Argued and Submitted May 16, 2007. Filed June 1, 2007. Breean Breggs, Esq., Center For Justice, Spokane, WA, for Plaintiffs-Appellants. H. Tim Hoffman, Hoffman Lazear, Oakland, CA, Sarah E. Siskind, Miner Barnhill Galland, Madison, WI, for Plaintiffs. Stephen J. Newman, Esq., Stroock Stroock Lavan, Los Angeles, CA, Jonathan P. Hayden, Esq., Heller Ehrman, LLP, San Francisco, CA, for Defendants-Appellees. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Northern District