12 Cited authorities

Goldberg v. Kelly
397 U.S. 254 (1970) Cited 4,962 times 3 Legal Analyses
Holding that due process rights attach to the deprivation of Government benefits
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"
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
Dukes v. Wal-Mart Stores, Inc.
603 F.3d 571 (9th Cir. 2010) Cited 253 times 20 Legal Analyses
Arguing that inadmissible expert testimony cannot be used to meet Rule 23
DeBoer v. Mellon Mortg. Co.
64 F.3d 1171 (8th Cir. 1995) Cited 313 times 1 Legal Analyses
Holding that "[t]he fact that only a handful of class members objected to the settlement similarly weighs in its favor" where five class members objected out of a class of 300,000
Wang v. Chinese Daily News
623 F.3d 743 (9th Cir. 2010) Cited 125 times 10 Legal Analyses
Holding that a district court properly certified a Rule 23(b) class along with an FLSA collective action and properly exercised supplemental jurisdiction over the state-law claim
Pettway v. American Cast Iron Pipe Co.
576 F.2d 1157 (5th Cir. 1978) Cited 237 times
Holding that the district court's approval of a backpay settlement constituted an abuse of discretion where all active named plaintiffs and 70% of the subclass objected
Griggs v. South Carolina Electric & Gas Co.
517 U.S. 1156 (1996) Cited 36 times 3 Legal Analyses
Noting that the class representatives fairly and adequately represented the class where there was no indication that their interests were antagonistic to the remainder of the class or that the claims were not vigorously pursued
In re US Bancorp Litigation
291 F.3d 1035 (8th Cir. 2002) Cited 102 times
Holding that a district court's awarding of attorney's fees amounting to 36% of the settlement fund did not constitute an abuse of discretion
Probe v. State Teachers' Retirement System
780 F.2d 776 (9th Cir. 1986) Cited 156 times 2 Legal Analyses
Holding that an eighteen-month delay in moving for class certification was reasonable because plaintiffs used that time to conduct discovery to determine the number of potential class members and the defendants did not claim that they were prejudiced by the delay
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 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"

Stephen Stetson et al v. West Publishing Corporation et al

12 Cited authorities

Holding that due process rights attach to the deprivation of Government benefits

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

Arguing that inadmissible expert testimony cannot be used to meet Rule 23

Holding that "[t]he fact that only a handful of class members objected to the settlement similarly weighs in its favor" where five class members objected out of a class of 300,000

Holding that a district court properly certified a Rule 23(b) class along with an FLSA collective action and properly exercised supplemental jurisdiction over the state-law claim

Holding that the district court's approval of a backpay settlement constituted an abuse of discretion where all active named plaintiffs and 70% of the subclass objected

Noting that the class representatives fairly and adequately represented the class where there was no indication that their interests were antagonistic to the remainder of the class or that the claims were not vigorously pursued

Holding that a district court's awarding of attorney's fees amounting to 36% of the settlement fund did not constitute an abuse of discretion

Holding that an eighteen-month delay in moving for class certification was reasonable because plaintiffs used that time to conduct discovery to determine the number of potential class members and the defendants did not claim that they were prejudiced by the delay

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"

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"