§Why CasetextPricing

Trombley et al v. National City Bank et al

REPLY re Unopposed MOTION for Attorney Fees , Reimbursement of Costs and Expenses, and Incentive Awards to Representative Plaintiffs, 41 Unopposed MOTION for Judgment and Final Approval of Class Action Settlement and Response to Objections

29 Cited authorities

  1. 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"

  2. Cotton v. Hinton

    559 F.2d 1326 (5th Cir. 1977)   Cited 774 times   1 Legal Analyses
    Upholding settlement despite fact that little formal discovery had been conducted and noting that, "[b]eing an extra judicial process, informality in the discovery of information is desired"

  3. In re Ins. Brokerage Antitrust Litig.

    579 F.3d 241 (3d Cir. 2009)   Cited 259 times   3 Legal Analyses
    Holding the waiver doctrine did not bar consideration on appeal of arguments presented to the District Court in a "conclusory fashion"

  4. Torrisi v. Tucson Elec. Power Co.

    8 F.3d 1370 (9th Cir. 1993)   Cited 384 times   1 Legal Analyses
    Holding that we review adequacy de novo

  5. Bell Atlantic Corp. v. Bolger

    2 F.3d 1304 (3d Cir. 1993)   Cited 230 times
    Holding that an unnamed plaintiff that did not intervene nonetheless had standing to appeal a class action settlement

  6. Swedish Hosp. Corp. v. Shalala

    1 F.3d 1261 (D.C. Cir. 1993)   Cited 160 times
    Holding that it is within the discretion of a court awarding fees from a common fund to base its award "only on that part of the fund for which counsel was responsible."

  7. Lonardo v. Travelers Indemnity Co.

    706 F. Supp. 2d 766 (N.D. Ohio 2010)   Cited 98 times
    Approving incentive awards of $5,000 to plaintiffs who substantially contributed to litigation and testified at the fairness hearing

  8. Stoetzner v. U.S. Steel Corp.

    897 F.2d 115 (3d Cir. 1990)   Cited 166 times
    Holding that "only" 29 objections in 281 member class "strongly favors settlement"

  9. Varacallo v. Massachusetts Mut. Life Ins. Co.

    226 F.R.D. 207 (D.N.J. 2005)   Cited 104 times
    Finding that class satisfied the superiority requirement where it was "unlikely that individual [c]lass [m]embers would have the resources to pursue successful litigation on their own"

  10. Shaw v. Toshiba America Information Systems, Inc.

    91 F. Supp. 2d 942 (E.D. Tex. 2000)   Cited 80 times
    Holding 30 objections in a “class of thousands” constituted a “conspicuous absence of substantial objections” supporting approval of the settlement