|
Brief of the Chamber of Commerce of the United States of America as Amicus Curiae in Support of Joint Petition for Writ of Mandamus. Flexible Products Co., et al, v. Micon, Inc. CV-01-1194, CV-01-1341, CV-02-1518.
Top
Ford Motor Credit Co. v. Nesheim, 285 Ark. 253, 686 S.W.2d 777 (1985). Appellate procedural rules were amended to permit appeal of an order certifying a case as a class action under R. 23. In Drew v. First Federal Savings & Loan Ass'n, 271 Ark. 667, 610 S.W.2d 876 (1981), the court held that an order denying class certification was appealable under R. 2.
Top
In re Tobacco II Cases. No. D0464435. Sept. 9, 2006. Proposition 64 "significantly restricts the standing of private citizens to bring UCL lawsuits," thus the class was properly decertified. The court also found that individual issues predominated.
Top
Toothman v. Freeborn & Peters, 80 P.3d 804 (Colo. App. 2002). Trial court may act sua sponte to create subclasses.
Villa Sierra Condominium v. Field Corp., 787 P.2d 661 (Colo. App. 1990). Rules 23(c) and (d) grant the trial court substantial discretion to create subclasses with respect to separate issues or to enter other orders designed to manage the litigation.
Danburg v. Realties, Inc., 677 P.2d 439 (Colo. App. 1984). Compliance with C.R.C.P. Rule 16, governing case and trial management, is mandatory.
Levine v. Empire Sav. & Loan Ass'n, 40 Colo. App. 285, 579 P.2d 642 (1977), aff'd, 197 Colo. 293, 592 P.2d 410 (1979). Early determination of feasibility of class action is preferred so that ample notice may be given to members of the class to appear in the action, seek exclusion, or object to the representation by the plaintiffs. Also, if certification is denied, the applicable statutes of limitation will not have run.
Top
Metro. Life Ins. co. v. Aetna Cas. & Sur. Co., 255 Conn. 295. Asbestos case in which court held that there existed multiple occurrences based ib each claimant's initial exposure to asbestos, not the single occurrence of insurance company's alleged failure to warn. Moreover, continuous exposure clause in the defendants' policies was held to combine claims arising from exposure at the same place and time rather than multiple exposures at different times and locations.
Top
Court of Chancery opinions. See also In re: Asbestos Litigation, Del. Super., 623 A.2d 546, 548 (1992); master's decision on pre-trial, non-dispositive issues is subject to review under the clearly erroneous test.
Top
Ford v. Chartone, Inc., 834 A.2d 875 (D.C. App. 2003).
Richards v. Delta Air Lines, Inc., No. 05-7004, July 14, 2006. Class status refused in suit against airline by passengers seeking compensation for lost luggage because suit was predominately or exclusively for monetary damages, without predominating common questions of law or fact.
Top
Roberts v. Braynon, 90 So.2d 623 (S.Ct. 1956). Discusses how the trial court may enter summary judgment on its own motion.
Rose v. Yulle, 88 So.2d 318 (S.Ct. 1956). Held that on pretrial the trial court may order a party to disclose names of all witnesses expected to be questioned at trial. The state supreme court suggested in the opinion that the party seeking to have a material witness testify who had not been mentioned at pretrial conference should advise the court and opposing counsel what the witness would testify to, that the testimony was material and essential to prove the party's case, and that there could be no lawful objection to its introduction into evidence.
Top
Akau v. Olohana Corp., 65 Haw. 383. Prerequisites for class actions are outlined, particularly with regard to the lower standard of specificity in defining a class are lower in Haw. R. Civ. P. 23(b)(2) than for Haw. R. Civ. P. 23(b)(3) actions.
Top
Zurich Ins. Co. v. Baxter Int'l, 275 Ill. App. 3d 30. Joinder of necessary parties; necessary parties and other class action issues are procedural matters and thus not subject to waiver.
Gavin v. AT&T Corp., No. 05-4398, Sept. 6, 2006. Improper removal of class action filed in state court; alleged fraud was not related to sale of securities regulated under federal laws.
Top
No. Indiana Pub. Service Co. v. Bolka, No. 46A04-9708-CV-344; Cornerwood Healthcare Inc. v. Estate of Herron, No. 82A01-9701-CV-34.
Top
Kuhn v. Sandoz Pharmaceuticals Corp., 270 Kan. 443 (2000).
Top
Lamar v. Office of Sheriff, 669 S.W.2d 27. Class action prerequisites.
Top
See Millett v. Atlantic Richfield Co., 2000 ME 178, 760 A.2d 250. The law court suggested that it would apply the "death knell" exception to the final judgment rule and permit interlocutory appeal of denial of class certification if the denial resulted in the death of the action for named, but not unnamed, plaintiffs. See Millett, 760 A.2d at 256.
Top
John Crane, Inc. v. David Puller, 899 A.2d 879 (Md. App.). Plaintiffs who had settled asbestosis claims could proceed with subsequent claims when they developed more serious conditions at a later date.
Top
USF&G Ins. Co. v. Walls, 2005 Miss. LEXIS 326. At issue was whether, despite the omission of a rule on class actions, such actions could be heard at equity. Caselaw suggested that class actions could be heard at equity, but the absence of rule or statute providing for class actions was held to be a bar to class actions in Mississippi.
Top
McGraw v. Exeter Region Coop. Sch. Dist. (2000) 765 A.2d 710. Interlocutory transfer without ruling.
Top
Eastham v. Public Employees' Retirement Ass'n Bd., 89 N.M. 399. Defines the three types of class action suits covered by N.M.R.Civ.P. Dist. Ct. 23(a), commonly known as "true," "hybrid," and "spurious."
Berry v. Fed. Kemper Life Assur. Co., 2004 NMCA 116. Discusses granting certification in mass tort cases, and trends in mass torts and class actions across the country.
Top
See Choice Financial Group v. Schellpfeffer, 2005 ND 90, regarding interlocutory appeals.
In re Blackwater Security Consulting LLC, No. 05-1949, Aug. 24, 2006. Federal court lacked jurisdiction to review district court order remanding case from federal court back to state court because "once a district court determines that it lacks subject matter jurisdiction over a removed case, § 1447(c) directs that the case 'shall be remanded.'"
Top
Sinnott v. Aqua-Chem, Inc., Slip Opinion No. 2007-Ohio-5584. Trial court ruling that asbestos plaintiff has shown current medical impairment is a "final order."
Top
Russell v. Sheahan, 324 Ore. 445. Court affirmed appellate decision to dismiss plaintiff's appeal of the trial court's order denying plaintiff's motion for an order allowing an interlocutory appeal of refusal to certify a class action, holding that the stipulated judgment entered pursuant to the applicable procedural rule was not appealable.
Top
Abrams v. Pneumo Abex Corp., 2006 PA Super. 136 (June 9). An asbestos claimant who had sued based on a minor injury may sue again if the individual develops a more serious condition at a later date. However, note that the opinion and dissenting opinions were withdrawn, and the petition for reargument was granted August 15, 2006.
Top
State ex rel. Atkins v. Burnside, 212 W. Va. 74. Trial court held that cases of nine original plaintiffs could be consolidated with fourteen additional plaintiffs for purposes of discovery, and that discovery would be conducted via a reverse bifurcation process. The state supreme court held that the consolidation constituted an abuse of discretion for which a writ of prohibition was the only available and effective remedy. The court found that consolidation imposed a significant burden on parties and witnesses, and that reverse bifurcation was inappropriate in this complex case.
State ex rel. Allman v. MacQueen, 209 W. Va. 726. Trial court management of asbestos case.
Top
|
