15 Cited authorities

  1. Heritage Bond v. U.S. Trust

    546 F.3d 667 (9th Cir. 2008)   Cited 134 times   1 Legal Analyses
    Holding that "the question of independence should be decided by the court where the claims were brought"
  2. Papas v. Buchwald Capital Advisors, LLC

    728 F.3d 567 (6th Cir. 2013)   Cited 90 times   1 Legal Analyses
    Holding that "a nexus between the other proceeding and settlement agreement" is insufficient to support "related to" jurisdiction because it would "allow[] the settling defendant to supply the bankruptcy court with subject matter jurisdiction to enjoin other claims simply by deciding to condition its agreement to the settlement upon the entry of an order barring those claims" and thus would result in "subject matter by consent"
  3. In re Masters Mates Pilots Pension Plan

    957 F.2d 1020 (2d Cir. 1992)   Cited 135 times   3 Legal Analyses
    Holding that "where the rights of one who is not a party to a settlement are at stake, the fairness of the settlement to the settling parties is not enough to earn the judicial stamp of approval," and requiring determination that "no one has been set apart for unfair treatment"
  4. Franklin v. Kaypro Corp.

    884 F.2d 1222 (9th Cir. 1989)   Cited 109 times   2 Legal Analyses
    Holding that a bar order in a class action securities fraud case should bar future claims for contribution to. ensure that liability is equitably distributed among settling and non-settling defendants
  5. Gerber v. MTC Electronic Technologies Co.

    329 F.3d 297 (2d Cir. 2003)   Cited 52 times   1 Legal Analyses
    Holding the Second Circuit's “one satisfaction” rule prohibits a plaintiff from recovering more than one satisfaction for each injury
  6. Bottaro v. Hatton Associates

    96 F.R.D. 158 (E.D.N.Y. 1982)   Cited 80 times
    Holding that the share owed by a settling party is relevant to apportionment of damages, which is a "determination cannot be made until a final judgment has been rendered"
  7. In re Worldcom, Inc. Erisa Litigation

    339 F. Supp. 2d 561 (S.D.N.Y. 2004)   Cited 30 times
    Noting that courts may approve settlement with bar orders as long as there is a proper set-off provision

    C/A No.: 3:08-3639 (D.S.C. Jul. 23, 2010)   Cited 16 times
    Declining to adopt Bottaro standard; observing, "The Fourth Circuit has never recognized a settlement privilege or required a particularized showing in the context of a subpoena for confidential settlement documents. Nor can the court find any statute or rule excepting a confidential settlement agreement from Rule 26(b)."
  9. Wagner v. Mastiffs

    Case No. 2:08-cv-431 (S.D. Ohio Aug. 19, 2013)   Cited 8 times

    Case No. 2:08-cv-431 Case No. 2:09-cv-0172 08-19-2013 Fredericka Wagner, et al., Plaintiffs, v. Circle W Mastiffs, et al., Defendants. Craig W. Williamson, Plaintiff, v. American Mastiff Breeders Council, et al., Defendants. Terence P. Kemp JUDGE SMITH Magistrate Judge Kemp ORDER This matter is before the Court on a renewed motion to compel filed by Diane St. Martin, Cameran Pridmore, and Sandy Taylor. The motion seeks an order compelling Craig and Jennifer Williamson and Circle W Mastiffs (the Williamsons)

  10. Burlington v. News Corp.

    CIVIL ACTION NO. 09-1908 (E.D. Pa. May. 4, 2015)   Cited 6 times
    Finding that an interest in enforcing a confidential settlement agreement from a previous case is merely collateral and not an "interest in litigation"
  11. Rule 7 - Pleadings Allowed; Form of Motions and Other Papers

    Fed. R. Civ. P. 7   Cited 7,641 times   2 Legal Analyses
    Defining "pleadings" for purposes of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure
  12. Section 1752a - National Credit Union Administration

    12 U.S.C. § 1752a   Cited 66 times
    Establishing "in the executive branch of the Government an independent agency to be known as the National Credit Union Administration"
  13. Section 709.5 - Payout priorities in involuntary liquidation

    12 C.F.R. § 709.5   Cited 2 times

    (a) Claimants whose claims are secured shall receive their security. To the extent their respective claims exceed the value of the security for those claims, as determined to the satisfaction of the liquidating agent, they shall each have an unsecured claim against the credit union having priority as provided in paragraph (b) of this section. (b) Unsecured claims against the liquidation estate that are proved to the satisfaction of the liquidating agent shall have priority in the following order: