§Why CasetextPricing

Vassalle et al v. Midland Funding LLC et al

Response to Brief Amicus Curiae

27 Cited authorities

  1. Rusheen v. Cohen

    37 Cal.4th 1048 (Cal. 2006)   Cited 1,152 times   2 Legal Analyses
    Holding California's litigation privilege precludes liability arising from noncommunicative acts that are necessarily related to enforcing a judgment

  2. Dunleavy v. Nadler

    213 F.3d 454 (9th Cir. 2000)   Cited 861 times   1 Legal Analyses
    Holding that the district court did not abuse its discretion in awarding an incentive award to the class representatives

  3. Hayes International Corp. v. McLucas

    423 U.S. 864 (1975)   Cited 252 times
    Adopting Scanwell

  4. 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"

  5. Rubin v. Green

    4 Cal.4th 1187 (Cal. 1993)   Cited 394 times   1 Legal Analyses
    Holding that "communications with 'some relation' to judicial proceedings" are absolutely immune from tort liability by the litigation privilege

  6. Grunin v. International House of Pancakes

    513 F.2d 114 (8th Cir. 1975)   Cited 446 times   1 Legal Analyses
    Finding that a notice "may consist of a very general description of the proposed settlement"

  7. Moulton v. U.S. S. Corp.

    581 F.3d 344 (6th Cir. 2009)   Cited 146 times   3 Legal Analyses
    Holding that attorney's fees in common fund cases must be reasonable

  8. TBK Partners, Ltd. v. Western Union Corp.

    675 F.2d 456 (2d Cir. 1982)   Cited 203 times
    Holding that claims based on the "identical factual predicate" as those covered by the settlement agreement were barred by a prior judgment on the settlement

  9. In re US Bancorp Litigation

    291 F.3d 1035 (8th Cir. 2002)   Cited 100 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

  10. In re Worldcom, Inc. Securities Litigation

    388 F. Supp. 2d 319 (S.D.N.Y. 2005)   Cited 87 times
    Holding that objector lacked standing to object to settlement where she "submitted a `Notice Regarding the Court's Inquiry Regarding Standing' reaffirming that [she] had an out-of-pocket loss arising from her purchase of WorldCom securities during the Class Period" but failed to submit a proof of claim