Matsushita Elec. Industrial Co. v. Epstein

36 Citing briefs

  1. Adams et al v. United Services Automobile Association et al

    RESPONSE TO ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE

    Filed January 14, 2016

    See Matsushita Elec. Indus. Co., 516 U.S. at 373. Given Counsel’s prior experiences, any reasonable attorney in the same circumstances as Counsel would have reasonably believed it was permissible to re-file the class claims in state court by agreement of the parties in order to effectuate the negotiated putative class settlement.

  2. Hege et al v. Aegon USA LLC et al

    RESPONSE in Opposition re MOTION for Summary Judgment Response

    Filed October 21, 2010

    As set forth above, there was no such jurisdiction because the parties’ interests were aligned even before the Runyan action was filed. 17 Matsushita, 516 U.S. 367. suggests that a state court may pass judgment over due process concerns such as adequacy, the actual procedure of the state court is always subject to challenge if it runs afoul of the Fourteenth Amendment.

  3. Willa Rosenbloom v. David E I Pyott et al

    REPLY in support MOTION to Stay Case pending First-

    Filed February 8, 2011

    Allergan also notes that a negotiated settlement of the Delaware Action – for which Plaintiffs would have an opportunity to be heard after receiving notice – could conceivably result in the release of all claims relating to Allergan's alleged off-label marketing, including those that are exclusively federal. E. & J. Gallo Winery v. Encana Energy Servs., Inc., 388 F. Supp. 2d 1148, 1157 (E.D. Cal. 2005) ("[a] settlement in state court that releases claims that are exclusively within the jurisdiction of the federal courts may preclude subsequent action in the federal court") (citing Matsushita, 516 U.S. at 373-74). As a result, because the Delaware Action could dramatically alter the Federal Action's scope, a stay in the interim would certainly reduce the potential for piecemeal adjudication.

  4. Porzio v. Overseas Shipholding Group, Inc. et al

    MEMORANDUM OF LAW in Support re: 230 MOTION for Settlement Preliminary Approval. . Document

    Filed August 6, 2015

    See, e.g., Tellabs, Inc. v. Makor Issues & Rights, Ltd., 551 U.S. 308, 313, 321 n.4 (2007); Basic Inc. v. Levinson, 485 U.S. 224, 230-32 (1988); Darquea v. Jarden Corp., No. 06 Civ. 722 (CLB), 2008 WL 622811, at *4 (S.D.N.Y. Mar. 6, 2008); Epstein v. MCA, Inc., 50 F.3d 644, 668 (9th Cir. 1995) (holding that securities actions alleging misstatements or omissions fit the requirements of Rule 23 “like a glove”), rev’d on other grounds sub nom. Matsushita Elec. Indus. Co. v. Epstein, 516 U.S. 367 (1996). Rule 23 allows for the effective enforcement of the securities laws for large numbers of investors who have suffered injuries but do not have a sufficient economic interest to incur the expense or inconvenience of an individual Case 1:12-cv-07948-SAS Document 231 Filed 08/06/15 Page 21 of 35 - 14 - 1043372_1 lawsuit.

  5. Fladell et al v. Wells Fargo Bank, N.A. et al

    RESPONSE/REPLY in Opposition to Objections to the Class Action Settlement

    Filed September 5, 2014

    And it has been held that even when the court does not have power to adjudicate a claim, it may still approve release of that claim as a condition of settlement of an action before it.” In re Corrugated Container Antitrust Litig., 643 F.2d 195, 221 (5th Cir. 1981) (internal quotation marks omitted; emphasis added); see also Matsushita Elec. Indus. Co. v. Epstein, 516 U.S. 367, 376-79 (1996); Thomas v. Blue Cross & Blue Shield Ass’n, 333 F. App’x 414, 420 (11th Cir. 2009) (“Given a broad enough settlement agreement . . . and provided that [a class member] had notice of it and an opportunity to opt out, it is perfectly acceptable for the [settling class] action to preclude his claims, even if they could not have been part of that action itself.”) (emphasis added). 26 The underlying “wrongs” alleged against Defendants do not differ depending on whether the insurance policy happened to be for hazards, floods, or wind.

  6. In Re: National Collegiate Athletic Association Student-Athlete Concussion Injury Litigation

    RESPONSE

    Filed August 22, 2014

    An unfair settlement like the present one isn’t altogether surprising where conflicts of interest abound. See e.g. Matsushita Elec. Indus. Co., Ltd. v. Epstein, 516 U.S. 367, 396 n.5 (1996) (citing General Telephone Co. of Southwest v. Falcon, 457 U.S. 147, 157–158, n. 13 (1982) (noting that Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23(a)(4)’s adequate representation requirement “raises concerns about the competency of class counsel and conflicts of interest.”) The most significant conflict has been discussed thoroughly—including personal injury class members who get no benefit but give up valuable rights.

  7. Howard L. Howell, et al., v. JBI, Inc. et al

    MEMORANDUM

    Filed September 10, 2013

    Sec. Litig., 254 F.R.D. 628, 632 (C.D. Cal. 2009) (citing Epstein v. MCA, Inc., 50 F.3d 644, 668 (9th Cir. 1995), rev’d on other grounds, Matsushita Elec. Indus. Co., Ltd. v. Epstein, 516 U.S. 367 (1996)). Under Fed. R. Civ. P. 23(a), a class may be certified if it is so numerous that joinder of all members is impracticable; there are questions of law and fact common to the class; the claims or defenses of the representative parties are typical of the claims or defenses of the class; and the representative parties will fairly and adequately protect the interests of the class.

  8. Howard L. Howell, et al., v. JBI, Inc. et al

    MEMORANDUM

    Filed September 10, 2013

    Sec. Litig., 254 F.R.D. 628, 632 (C.D. Cal. 2009) (citing Epstein v. MCA, Inc., 50 F.3d 644, 668 (9th Cir. 1995), rev’d on other grounds, Matsushita Elec. Indus. Co., Ltd. v. Epstein, 516 U.S. 367 (1996)). Under Fed. R. Civ. P. 23(a), a class may be certified if it is so numerous that joinder of all members is impracticable; there are questions of law and fact common to the class; the claims or defenses of the representative parties are typical of the claims or defenses of the class; and the representative parties will fairly and adequately protect the interests of the class.

  9. Dandong et al v. Pinnacle Performance Limited et al

    MEMORANDUM OF LAW in Support re: 141 MOTION to Certify Class.. Document

    Filed March 22, 2013

    Epstein v. MCA, Inc., 50 F.3d 644, 668 (9th Cir. 1995), rev’d on other grounds sub nom. Matsushita Elec. Indus. Co., Ltd. v. Epstein, 516 U.S. 367 (1996). Absent a class action, most class members would be discouraged from even seeking relief because their potential individual recovery would be outweighed by the massive costs of pursuing litigation.

  10. Securities Investor Protection Corporation v. Bernard L. Madoff Investment Securities L.L.C.

    MEMORANDUM OF LAW in Opposition re: 196 MOTION to Dismiss Regarding Antecedent Debt Issues.. Document

    Filed July 25, 2012

    Br. at 6 (citing Matsushita Elec. Indus. Co. v. Epstein, 516 U.S. 367, 383 (1996) (finding that Congress did not intend to create an exception to section 1738 for suits involving violations of the Exchange Act); Murphy v. Gallagher, 761 F.2d 878, 881 (2d Cir. 1985) (discussing how Congress, in enacting the Securities Act, was well aware of the state securities acts and common law regarding fraud). The Trustee does not dispute that Defendants may, subject to statutory limitations, have the right to bring certain federal or state law claims, but those claims are not protected under SIPA and will only be entitled to general creditor status to be paid out of the general estate and not the fund of customer property.