Swan v. Stoneman

5 Citing briefs

  1. Franco v. Allied Interstate LLC

    REPLY MEMORANDUM OF LAW in Support re: 82 MOTION for Entry of Judgment under Rule 54

    Filed July 21, 2015

    A Named Plaintiff with No Stake in the Litigation Cannot Represent a Class After Plaintiff’s claim is rendered moot by the entry of judgment, Plaintiff cannot adequately represent the purported class because “a class action cannot be maintained unless there is a named plaintiff with a live controversy both at the time the complaint is filed and at the time the class is certified.” Swan, 635 F.2d at 102 n. 6 (2d Cir. 1980). Rule 23(a)(4) requires that a class representative have sufficient interest in the outcome of the case to “fairly and adequately protect the interests of the class” and to “vigorously pursu[e] the claims of the class.”

  2. Kruse et al v. Wells Fargo Home Mortgage, Inc. et al

    REPLY in Support re MOTION for Summary Judgment and in Opposition to the Cross-Motion to Intervene

    Filed August 8, 2005

    None of those decisions involved the dismissal of the named plaintiff's claim on the merits and the court's loss of Article III jurisdiction . Swan v. Stoneman, 635 F.2d 97, 102 n .6 (2d Cir . 1980), and Diduck v . Kaszycki & Sons Contractors, Inc .

  3. Kruse et al v. Wells Fargo Home Mortgage, Inc. et al

    RESPONSE in Support re Amended MOTION to Intervene Plaintiffs' Amended Notice of Cross Motion for Intervention , Plaintiffs' Amended Memorandum of Law in Support of Their Cross Motion For Intervention

    Filed August 8, 2005

    Moreover, a controversy still remains between Defendants and the class and the case therefore should continue under the direction of the Intervenors. See Swan v. Stoneman, 635 F.2d 97, 99, 102 n.6 (2d Cir. 1980) (intervention was allowed under Rule 24(b) Case 1:02-cv-03089-ILG-RLM Document 69 Filed 08/08/05 Page 9 of 11 DOCS\296315v1 6 in a class action where a live controversy continued to exist between the putative class and the defendants). As set forth herein, all of the elements necessary for intervention are present and there are strong policy considerations favoring intervention.

  4. Franco v. Allied Interstate LLC

    MEMORANDUM DECISION & ORDER denying 42 Motion to Certify Class; granting 64 Motion to Dismiss. For the reasons stated above, plaintiff's motion for class certification is DENIED and defendant's motion to dismiss is GRANTED. The Clerk of Court is directed to close the motions at ECF Nos. 42 and 64 and to terminate this action.

    Filed April 2, 2014

    "[A] class action cannot be maintained unless there is a named plaintiff with a live controversy both at the time the complaint is filed and at the time the class is certified." Swan v. Stoneman, 635 F.2d 97, 102 n.6 (2d Cir. 1980). Accordingly, plaintiffs motion to certify a class is denied.

  5. Deochar v. Specialized Loan Servicing, LLC

    MOTION for pre motion conference

    Filed October 12, 2012

    Comer v. Cisneros, 37 F.3d 775, 798 (2d Cir. 1994) (citing Board of Sch. Comm’rs of Indianapolis v. Jacobs, 420 U.S. 128, 129-30 (1975)); see also Swan v. Stoneman, 635 F.2d 97, 102 n.6 (2d Cir. 1980) (“As a general rule, a class action cannot be maintained unless there is a named plaintiff with a live controversy both at the time the complaint is filed and at the time the class is certified.”).