§Why CasetextPricing

Pearson v. Target Corporation

RESPONSE

53 Cited authorities

  1. Boeing Co. v. Van Gemert

    444 U.S. 472 (1980)   Cited 1,027 times   3 Legal Analyses
    Holding that the district court properly assessed attorney's fees based on the total fund available to the prevailing class rather than the amount actually recovered

  2. In re Cendant Corp. Litigation

    264 F.3d 201 (3d Cir. 2001)   Cited 710 times
    Holding that the PSLRA is clear that "the power to `select and retain' lead counsel belongs . . . to the lead plaintiff, and the court's role is confined to deciding whether to `approve' that choice" and that should the court disagree with the lead plaintiffs choice "it should clearly state why . . . and should direct the lead plaintiff to undertake an acceptable selection process"

  3. Radcliffe v. Experian Info. Sols. Inc.

    715 F.3d 1157 (9th Cir. 2013)   Cited 414 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”

  4. In re Mercury Interactive Corp.

    618 F.3d 988 (9th Cir. 2010)   Cited 414 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

  5. Six Mexican Wkrs. v. Ariz. Citrus Growers

    904 F.2d 1301 (9th Cir. 1990)   Cited 728 times   12 Legal Analyses
    Holding the "district court did not abuse its discretion by calculating attorneys' fees as a percentage of the total fund" in a similar statutory regime where discrete violations totaled either $250 or $500

  6. 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

  7. Murray v. GMAC Mortgage Corp.

    434 F.3d 948 (7th Cir. 2006)   Cited 271 times   5 Legal Analyses
    Holding an "unconstitutionally excessive [award] may be reduced"

  8. Matter of Continental Ill. Sec. Litigation

    962 F.2d 566 (7th Cir. 1992)   Cited 395 times
    Holding that when a common fund case has been prosecuted on a contingent basis, plaintiffs' counsel must be compensated adequately for the risk of non-payment

  9. In re Synthroid Marketing Litigation

    264 F.3d 712 (7th Cir. 2001)   Cited 234 times   2 Legal Analyses
    Holding that courts should award class counsel market-rate litigation expenses and that "[i]f counsel submit bills with the level of detail that paying clients find satisfactory, a federal court should not require more"

  10. Uhl v. Thoroughbred Technology & Telecommunications, Inc.

    309 F.3d 978 (7th Cir. 2002)   Cited 186 times
    Holding that when one claim is justisticiable, "[t]his is enough to permit the court to address the entire suit"

  11. Rule 23 - Class Actions

    Fed. R. Civ. P. 23   Cited 34,840 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. Rule 5 - Serving and Filing Pleadings and Other Papers

    Fed. R. Civ. P. 5   Cited 21,910 times   16 Legal Analyses
    Allowing service by filing papers with the court's electronic-filing system

  13. Rule 30 - Depositions by Oral Examination

    Fed. R. Civ. P. 30   Cited 16,027 times   126 Legal Analyses
    Upholding a district court's decision not to consider the plaintiff's deposition errata sheets in opposition to a motion for summary judgment when they were untimely

  14. Rule 7 - Bond for Costs on Appeal in a Civil Case

    Fed. R. App. P. 7   Cited 60 times

    In a civil case, the district court may require an appellant to file a bond or provide other security in any form and amount necessary to ensure payment of costs on appeal. Rule 8(b) applies to a surety on a bond given under this rule. 28 APPENDIX U.S.C. § 7 As amended Apr. 30, 1979, eff. Aug. 1, 1979; Apr. 24, 1998, eff. Dec. 1, 1998. NOTES OF ADVISORY COMMITTEE ON RULES-1967This rule is derived from FRCP 73(c) without change in substance. NOTES OF ADVISORY COMMITTEE ON RULES-1979 AMENDMENTThe amendment