P RE CE DE NT I AL UN I TED STATES CO UR T OF A PP EALS F O R T H E T H IR D C IR C U IT

N os . 08- 3621, 08- 3790, 08- 3791 & 08- 3857


### IN RE : COM MUNITY BANKOF NO RT HE RN VIRG INIA AN D GUA RANT Y N AT I ON ALBANK OF TA LL AH AS SE E S EC ON D M ORTGAG E L OAN

LI TI GATI ON ( MDL 1674) O b j ectin g C lass M em

b ers, Appe l l ant s ( 08- 3621) (Pursuant t o F ed. R. App . P. 12(a) ) A lab am a an dG eo rg ia O b j ectin g C lass M em b ers, Appe l l ant s ( 08- 3790) (Pursuant t o F ed. R. App . P. 12(a) ) R i char d H

. H eady , J r . , R obertR ow l ey , A r l i ne R ow l ey , G al en H ur t , D arr el l T urner , M i chae l R i ch, E dna R i ch, Patr i ck Fr ankl i n, M i chae l G rah am , T rac yG rah am , E ri c L ew is, B arb ara L e w is 

### , D av idD av id so n , M ich ael M o o re, K arla Moor e , Anthony

Di xon and Kathy

Di xon. Appe l l ant s ( 08- 3791) (Pursuant t o F ed. R. App . P. 12(a) )2 

### T ro y E llio tt, L o rrainO sw aldan dRuthD
. Mathi s - W i s s e h, Appe l l ant s ( 08- 3857) (Pursuant t o F ed. R. App . P. 12(a) )

N o. 09- 2001


### JO HND RENN EN ; R O WEN AD RENN EN ; DAVI D GARNER; DI ANE GARNER; SH AW N S TA RKEY ; LO RENE ST ARKE Y,

Ap p ellants

v . P N C B AN KN A T IO N A L A S S O C IA T IO N ; GM AC

- RE SI DENT I ALFUND ING C O RP O RA T IO N , a M inn eso ta C o rp o ratio n ; H O M E C O M IN G S F IN AN C IA L N E T WO RKIN C .,

aDe l awar e Cor

por at i on
A p p ea l from the U n it ed S tat es D istri ct C o u rt f o r th e W e ste rn D istric t o f P e n n sy lv a n ia (D .C . C iv il A c tio n N o s . 2 -0 2 -c v -0 1 2 0 1 , 2- 03- cv- 00425, 2- 05- cv- 00688 and

2- 05- cv- 01386) D i s tr i ctJ udge: H onor abl e G aryL
. L anca s t erJ udge Sci r i ca c om pl et ed hi s t erm as C hi ef J udge on M ay * 4, 2010. T he H onor abl e J ohn E

. J ones , I I I , U ni t ed St at es D i s tr i ct

** J udge forthe M idd le D i s tr i ctof Penns y l vani a, s i t t i ng by des i gnat i on. 3

A r gued A pr i l 20, 2010 B efor e: SC I R I C A , C hi ef J udge, A M B R O , C i r cui tJ udge and *J O N E S , D i s tr i ctJ udge

** ( O pi ni on fi l ed: Sept ember22, 2010) G arrettM
. H o d es, E sq u ir e D av id M

. S k ee n s, E sq u ir e J. M icha el V au g h an , E sq u ir e R oyFr eder i ck W al t er s , E s qui r e ( A r gued) W al t er s , B ender , St r ohbehn & V aughan 1100 M ai n St r eet 2 5 0 0 C ityC en ter S q u are P. O
. B ox 26188 K ans as C i ty , M O 64196 M icha el J. C artee, E sq u ir e Jo h n J. L loy d , E sq u ir e C a r t e e & L l o yd 2210 E i ghth St r eet , Sui t e B4 T us cal oos a, A L 35401 C
. K n o x M cL an ey , III , E sq u ir e M cLaney& A s s oci at es 509 Sout h C our tSt r eet M ont gom ery , A L 36104 F ran k li n R
. N ix, E sq u ir e L a w O f f ice s o f F ra n k lin R . N ix 1 0 2 0 F o x c r o f

tR o a d , N
. W. A t l ant a, G A 33032- 2624 Jo h n W
. S h arb rou g h , III , E sq u ir e T h e S h arb rou g h L aw F irm 156 St
. A nthonySt r eet M obi l e, A L 36603 S co ttC
. B o ri so n , E sq u ir e L eg g L aw F irm 5500 B uckey s t ow n Pi ke Fr eder i ck, M D 21703 J
. J er om e H art zel l , E s qui r e ( A r gued) H art zel l & W hi t eman 2626 G l enw ood A venue, Sui t e 500 R al ei gh, N C 27608 M all am J. M ay n ard , E sq u ir e Fi nanci al pr ot ect i on L aw C ent er , Sui t e 342 P. O
. B ox 390 W i l m i ngt on, N C 284025 R o b ert B
. S m ith , E sq u ir e S m ith , C o h en & M o rk 4 4 5 F o rtP itt B o u leva rd 210 For tPi t tC om m ons Pi t t s bur gh, PA 15219 C o u n se l f

o r A p p e llan ts E ri c G
. C alho u n , E sq u ir e T r avi s & C al houn 10 00 P rovi den ce T ow ers E ast 5001 Spr i ng V al l eyR oad D al l as , T X 75244 R
. B ruce Car l s on, E s qui r e ( A r gued) G aryF
. L yn ch , E sq u ir e C ar l s on L ynch 36 N or th J eff

er s on St r eet P. O
. B ox 7635 N ew C as t l e, PA 16107 D an iel O
. M y ers, E sq u ir e A
. H o yt R o w ell , III , E sq u ir e R i char ds on, Patr i ck, W es tbr ook & B r i ckman 1037 C huck D aw l eyB oul evar d, B ui l di ng A M ountPl eas ant , SC 29464 K ev in O u fn ac , E sq u ir e R i char ds on, Patr i ck, W es tbr ook & B r i ckman 174 E as tB aySt r eet C har l es t on, SC 294016 T hom as L
. A l l en, E s qui r e ( A r gued) R o yW
. A rno ld, E sq u ir e D av id J. B ir d , E sq u ir e D o n n a M
. D o b li ck , E sq u ir e N ina M

. F ab er, E sq u ir e R e e d S m ith 225 Fi fth A venue Pi t t s bur gh, PA 15222 D arr y l J
. M ay , E s qui r e ( A r gued) B al l ar d Spahr 1735 M arketSt r eet , 51s tFl oor Phi l adel phi a, PA 19103 D av id G

. O b erd ick, E sq u ir e M e y e r, U n k o v ic & S c o tt 535 Sm i thfi el d St r eet 1300 O l i verB ui l di ng Pi t t s bur gh, PA 15222 F
. D o u g las R o ss, E sq u ir e O di n, Fel dm an & Pi t t l eman 9302 L ee H i ghw ay , Sui t e 1100 Fai r fax, V A 22031 J. S co ttW atso n , E sq u ir e Feder al D epos i tI ns ur ance C orpor at i on A ppel l at e Li t i gat i on Sect i on V S- 7008 3501 N or th Fai r fax D r i ve A r l i ngt on, V A 222267 C ouns el forA ppel l ees

OPI NI ON O F THE COURT

A M B R O , C i r cui tJ udge

T a b le o f C o n ten ts I
. F a ctu aland Pr oc e dur alBackg r ound
. .............. 10 A . T h e A lle g e d P re d a to ry L e n d in g S c h e m e .. . . . . . . 10 B . T h e S e p a ra te C las s A c tio n s a n d th e In iti a l S e t t l e m e n t
. . ....................... 11 C
. T h e O b

j e c t o r s . ...................... 17 D
. T h e P r i o rA p p e a l

. ......................... 21 E
. T he Pr ocee di ngs on R emand.

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 23 1
. T h e H obs on A c t i o n . .................. 23 2 . T h e O b

jec to rs W ith d ra w T h e ir M o tio n to I n t e r v e n e . ....................... 24 3. T he D i s tr i ctC our t ’ s V i abi l i tyB r i efi ng.. . . 25 4 . T h e M o d if

ied S e ttl e m e n t.
. . . . . . . . . . . . . 27 5. T he D i s tr i ctC our tD et erm i nes the T ILA / H O E P A C l ai m s A r e N o tV i a b l e ................... 30 6. T he D i s tr i ctC our tA ppoi nt s a “Fr i end of th e C o u r t
. ....................... 32 7. T he D i stri ctC ou rtD enies the O bject ors’ R enew ed M ot i on t o I nt ervene, C o n d itio n a lly R e -C e rt if ie s th e C la s s ,8 and Pr el i m i nar i l yA ppr oves the M o d if ied S e ttl e m e n t.
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . 34 8. T he D i s tr i ctC our tC ert i fi es the C l as s and A p p ro v e s th e M o d if

ied S e ttl e m e n t.
. . . 36 II
. Jur i s di ct i on and St andards of R evi ew . ............ 37 III D is cus s i on .................................... 38 A
. C l a s s C e r t i f

i c a t i o n . ........................ 39 1
. L e g a l S t a n d a r d s . .................... 39 2. S t atute- of-L i m i t at i on s I ssues atthe C l ass C ert i fi cat i on St age. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 42 3. T he D i stri ctC ou rt ’s A naly si s. . . . . . . . . . . 49 a. T he D i s tr i ctC our t ’ s R el at i on- B ack A n a l y s i s . .................. 50 b. T he D i s tr i ctC our t ’ s E qui t abl e T o llin g A n a lysis

.. . . . . . . . . . . . 64 4. A de quacyof R epr es ent at i on. . . . . . . . . . . . 70 a. T he C l ass R epresent at i ves. . . . . . . . 70 b

. C l a s s C o u n s e l

. ................ 73 5. T he N orth C arol i na O bject ors. . . . . . . . . . 83 B . T h e F a irn e ss o f

th e S e ttl e m e n t.
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . 89 C
. T he O bj ect or s ’ R enew ed M ot i on t o I nt ervene. . . 93 D
. T he O bject ors’ R enew ed P et i t i on for M and am us t o R ecus e the D i s tr i ctJ udge.

. . . . . . . . . . . . . 95 I V . C oncl usi on . ................................ 100 T hi s i s th e s e c o n d a p p e a l f r o m th e c e r t i f

i c a t i o n o f a cons ol i dat ed “s ett l ementonl y ” nat i onw ide cl as s act i on that9 a l l e g e d a n i l l e g a l h o me e q u i t y l e n d i n g s c h e me i n v o l v i n g two banks and a co m panythatpur chas ed s econd mor t gage l oans fro m them. C ert ai n m ember s of the cl as s ( the “O bj ect or s ”) cont es tthe D i s tr i ctC our t ’ s deci s i ons cert ify i ng thatcl as s and appr ovi ng the cl as s s ett l ement
. A s i t w as i n the pr i orappea l , the pri ncipal disp ute r em ai ns t he n am ed p l ai nti ffs’ and cl ass c o u n se l’s d e c isio n n o t to m a k e c laim s a g a in st th e d e f e n d a n ts underthe Trut h in L en di ng A ct , 15 U
. S. C
. § 1601 et s eq. ( “TILA ”) , and t he H om e O w ner s hi p and Equi tyPr ot ect i on A ct (“ H O E P A ” ), i d. § 1 6 3 9
. T h e O b jectors c o n tend that the f ail u re t o d o s o r ender s the named pl ai nt i ffs and cl as s couns el in a d e q u a te c la s s re p re s e n ta tiv e s . W e conc l ude that the D i s tr i ctC our t

— byappr oachi ng the a d e q u a c y -o f

-re p re se n tatio n q u e stio n s o n re m a n d a s th o u g h it w er e rul i ng on a mot i on t o amend pur s uantt o Federal R u l e of C i vil P rocedu re 15 (c) or a m oti on t o di sm i ss pu rs uan tto R u le 12 (b) (6)

— app l i ed the w rong lega l s tan dard i n rul i ng on cl ass c e rtific a ti o n u n d e r R u le 2 3 . W e th u s re lu c tan tlyv a c a te a g a in the C ou rt ’s cert i fi cat i on decis i on and i t s approv al o f the clas s s e t t l e me n t , a n d r e ma n d f o r f u r th e r p r o c e e d i n g s . I n d o i n g s o , we c o n tin u e to re

jec t (i) th e c laim th a t th e D istric t C o u rt a b u se d its d isc re tio n in d e n y in g th e O b jec to r s ’ re n e w e d m o tio n to in ter v e n e , an d (ii) th e ir re n e w e d p e tit io n f o r m a n d a m u s to r ecus e the D i s tr i ctJ udge i n thi s cas e.C B N V w a s a c q u ire d b yM e rc a n til e B a n k sh a re s C o rp . in 1 2 0 0 5
. M e r c a n t i l e i s n o w o wn e d b yP NC Ba n k , N. A. 10 I . Fac t ualand Pr oc e dur alBackg r ound A. Th e Al l e g e d P r e d a t o ryLe n d i n g S c h e me T he com plex factual and p rocedu ral his t oryof these m a tters is s e t o u t at le n g th in o u r p rio r o p in io n , an d w e o n ly s u m m a ri z e it h e re . See I n r e C om m uni t

y B ank of

N

. V a. , 418 F
. 3 d 2 7 7 (3d C ir

. 2 0 0 5 )(“ C o m m u n it y B a n k I” ). T hese cl ass act i ons i nvol ve the al l eged pr edat oryl endi ng s cheme of the Sh u m w ay/ B aps tO r gani zat i on ( “Shum w ay ”) , a r es i dent i al m or t gage l oan bus i nes s i nvol ved i n fac i l i t at i ng the maki ng of high-i n ter e st, m ort gag e-backed l oan s t o d ebt- l aden ho m eow ners. B eca us e Shum w ayi s not a depos i t oryl ender

— and thus s ubj ect to f e e c a p s a n d in ter e st c e ili n g s u n d e r v a rio u s s tate law s

— it a lleg e d lyf

o rm e d re latio n sh ip s w ith d e f e n d a n ts C o m m u n ity B ank of N or thern V i r gi ni a ( “C B N V ”) and G uar ant ee N at i onal B ank of Tal l ahas s ee (“G N B T ”) , both fi nanci al l ydi s tr es s ed b a n k s, to c irc u m v e n t th o se re stric tio n s. T h is a lleg e d ly

1 perm i t t ed Shum w ayt o conce al the or i gi n of t he l oans , thus cre at i ng the appe ar ance thatfee s w er e pai d s ol el yt o a depos i t oryi ns t i tut i on w hen “[ i ] n r eal i ty. . . the overw hel m i ng m aj or i ty of fee s and other char ges as s oci at ed w i th the lo ans w er e funne l ed t o Shum w ay . ” I d. a t 2 8 4
. T h e c l a s s a c t i o n c o mp l a i n tc l a i me d d e f e n d a n tGM ACI n M ar ch 2004, the C om ptr ol l er of the C urr ency 2 de c l a r e d GN BT t o b e “ u n s a f e a n d u n s o u n d , ” a n d a p p o i n t e d as re c e iv e r t h e F e d e ra l D e p o s it I n s u ra n c e C o rp o ra tio n . Id

. at293. T h e F D IC w a s th e n su b stitu ted f o r G N B T a s th e re a l p a rtyin in te re s t in th e c la s s a c tio n . 11 R es i dent i al Fundi ng C orpor at i on ( “R FC ”) w as a co- cons pi r at or i n t hi s s cheme, der i vi ng a s ubs t ant i al por t i on of i t s bus i nes s by p u r c h a s i n g “

j u m b o ” a n dh i g h “ l o a n - t o - v a l u e ” l o a n s f r o m C BN V and G N B T in t he s econda rym arket

. T he named pl ai nt i ffs a s s e r t e d th a tRF C a c t e d wi th k n o wl e d g e th a tCBNV a n d GNBT w e re m e re “ stra w p a rties ” u se d to f u n n e l o r ig in a tio n a n d tit le servi ces fee s t o Shum w ay . B eca us e thes e fee s w ere in c o rp o ra ted in to th e p rin c ip a l o n th e lo a n , R F C p u rp o rte d ly benef i t t ed fr om the pr act i ce thr ough i ncr eas ed i nt er es ti ncome. I n 2001, the fe der al C om ptr ol l erof the C urr ency i nves t i gat ed anda u d i t e dGN BT, and i m pos ed t i ght err es tr i ct i ons on t he bank. Shor t l y ther eaf t er , R FC announce d thati tw oul d no l on ger purchase h i gh i nter estm ort gag e l oan s l i ke those or i gi nat ed byC B N V and G N B T
. R FC ’ s w i thdr aw al , i n turn, caus ed the Shum w ay or gani zat i on t o s hut dow n i n ear l y2003. 2
B
. T he Separ at e C l as s A ct i ons and the I ni t i al Set t l ement T h e c o n so lid a te d c las s a c tio n s b e f o re u s b e g a n a s s ix se p a ra te c las s a c tio n s. T h e f irst— Da v is v . CBN V

, w hi ch namedI n a dd i t i on t o Car l s on Lync h Lt d. , the c l a s s i s a l so 3 r epr es ent ed bythe C har l es t on, Sout h C ar ol i na l aw fi r m of R ic h a rd s o n , P a tr ic k , W e s tb ro o k & B ri c k m a n , L L C
. 12 C B N V a n d R F C a s d e f

e n d a n ts— w a s f

iled in P e n n sy lv a n ia s tate court i n M ay2001 as a put at i ve s t at e- w i de cl as s act i on and w as lat er rem o v ed to f

ed era l cou rt(on fe d era l p ree m p ti o n g rou n d s). T he fi r s t ac ti on t o name G N B T and R FC as defe ndant s w as Ul r i c h v . GN

BT, fi l ed i n the D i s tr i ctC our tforthe W es tern D i s tr i ctof P enns y l vani a i n Sept ember2002 as a put at i ve n a tio n w id e c las s a c tio n . T h e re m a in in g f o u r a c tio n s a re : Sabo v . CBN V , fi l ed i n fede r al court i n Sept ember 2002 as a put at i ve n a t i o n wi d e c l a s s a c t i o n ; a n d P i c a r d v . CBNV (O ctob er 2 0 0 2 ), Mathis v . G BN T ( N ovember2002) , and Ke s s l e rv . RFC ( February2003) , al l fi l ed i n Penns y l vani a s t at e courtas put at i ve s t at e- w i de cl as s act i ons and l at err emoved t o fede r al courti n the W e s te rn D is tr i c t
. R . B ru c e C a rl s o n o f C a rl s o n L yn c h L td ., l ocated i n S ew i ckley , P enn sy l van i a, w as the lead plai nti ffs’ att orneyi n al l s i x act i ons , and w as s ubs equent l yappoi nt ed as c las s c o u n se l b yth e D istric t C o u rt. 3
T hes e ac t i ons a s s e rt e dc l a i ms a gai ns tC B N V , G N B T , and R FC underthe R eal E s t at e Sett l eme n t P roce dur es A ct ( “R E SPA ”) , 12 U
. S. C
. § 2601 et s eq. ; the R acke t eerI nfl uence d and C orruptO r gani zat i ons A ct ( “R I C O ”) , 18 U
. S. C
. § 1961 et s eq. ; and the us ury , unfai rtr ade pr acti ce s, and cons um er pr o t e c t i o n l a ws o f P e n n s y l v a n i a . S e c t i o n 8 ( a ) o f RESPA pr ohi bi t s the gi vi ng oracc ept i ng of any“fe e, ki ckbac k, orthi ng13 of val ue” i n excha nge for r efe rr al s of fede r al l yr el at ed mort gage l oans . 12 U
. S. C
. § 2607( a)

. Sect i on 8( b) pr ohi bi t s the gi vi ng or accep t i ng of “a ny po rt i on , spl i t , or percentage” of unea rned fees. I d. § 2607( b)

. Pl ai nt i ffs al l eged that defe ndant s vi ol at ed R E SPA i n both w ay s : ( 1) by char gi ng exce s s i ve or i gi nat i on fee s ( oft en as hi gh as 10% of the l oan pr i nci pal ) and pay i ng them as “ki ckbac ks ” t o Shu m w ay i n excha nge fori t s m or t gages ol i ci t at i on s ervi ces ; and ( 2) bychar gi ng t i t l e s ervices fe es for s e r v i c e s th a t we r e n e v e r p e r f o r me d

. P l a i n t i f

f s a l l e g e d th a tRF C, as t he as s i gnee of

t he cl os ed l oans , w as der i vat i vel yl i abl e for th e b a n k s ’ c o n d u c t. See 1 5 U .S .C . § 1 6 4 1 (d )( 1 ). In Ju ly2 0 0 3 , the n a m e d p lain tiff s a n d th e d e f

e n d a n ts (co ll ec tiv e ly , the “ S ett li n g P arti es” ) m o v ed fo r pre li m inary appr oval of a pr opos ed nat i onw i de cl as s act i on s ett l ement( the

“ In iti a l S e ttl e m e n t”) . T h e se ttl e m e n t cla ss w a s d e f in e d to in c lu d e a ll p e rso n s (1 ) w h o e n ter e d in to a lo a n a g re e m e n t w ith C B N V orG N B T , ( 2) w hos e l oan w as s ecur ed bya s econd m or t gage ordeed o f t rus ton pr opertyl ocat ed i n the U ni t ed St at es , and ( 3) w hos e l oan w as pur chas ed byR FC
. T her e w as no t i m e restr i ct i on on the cl as s , w hi ch enc om pas s ed ap p rox im ately4 4 , 0 0 0 loan s (da ti n g b ac k to as ea rl yas 1 9 9 8 ). I n r eac hi ng t he I ni t i al S ett l ement , the Sett l i ng Par t i es agr eed thatthe “r eal i s t i c bes t
- cas e s cena r i o forR E SPA damages on a per - l oan bas i s ” w as $4, 765 ( $3, 675 foror i gi nat i on fee s and $ 1 ,0 9 0 f o r titl e se rv ice f

e e s). W ith a c las s o f

a p p ro x im a tely 44, 000 m embers, the Sett l i ng Par t i es concl uded thatthe t ot alRE S P A pr ovi des that“[a ] nyper s on orper s ons w ho 4 vi ol at e the pr ohi bi t i ons orl i m i t at i ons of thi s s ect i on s hal l be j oi nt l yand seve r al l y l i abl e t o the per s on orper s ons char ged for the s ett l ements ervice inv o l ved i n the vi ol at i on i n an amount equal t o thr ee t i m es th e am o untof anychar ge pai d fors uch s ett l ements ervi ce. ” 12 U
. S. C
. § 2 6 0 7 ( d) ( 2)

. T hus , i f the s ett l ementfee s char ged bydefe ndant s vi ol at ed R E SPA , an i ndi vi dual pl ai nt i ff w oul d ( as s um i ng he or s he pr evai l ed attr i al oron s um m aryj udgm ent ) be ent i t l ed t o thr ee t i m es the amount of t hos e fees

. T he S ett l i ng Par t i es di d notfac t ori n the pot ent i al tr e b l i n g o f d a ma g e s u n d e r RESP A, whi c h wou l d p u s h u p t he “bes t
- cas e” r ecove r yper cl as s m embert o m or e than $14, 000 (an d m o re tha n $ 6 0 0 m il li o n fo r th e c lass as a w h o le). 14 “bes t
- cas e” r ecove r y for the cl as s ( aft eraver agi ng the amountof i ndi vi dual fee s char ged) w as appr oxi m at el y$200 m i l l i on. 4
T h e In iti a l S e ttl e m e n t c o m m itt e d d e f e n d a n ts to p a yu p to $33 m i l l i on, w i th cl as s m ember s r ece i vi ng betw een $ 2 5 0 and $9 25 each. T he set t l em ent fund w ou l d b e al l ocated am on g clas s m em bers b ased on tw o co re fact ors: (1) w hen the clas s m ember ’ s loan cl os ed; and ( 2) the cl as s m ember ’ s s t at e of re s id e n c e w h e n th e lo a n c lo s e d

. F ir s t, $ 2 3 .2 m ill io n w o u ld b e d istrib u ted a u to m a tica lly bas ed on the dat e the loa n s cl os ed. T he appr oxi m at el y14, 000 cl as s m em ber s w hos e l oans cl os ed w i thi n one y earof the “r el evantcompl ai nt s ”— i

. e. , the ea r l i es tcl as s act i on compl ai nt fil ed a g a in st th e b an k that m ad e the loan to the class m em b er,15 the D avis C om pl ai nt( forC B N V borr ow er s ) and the Ulr i ch Comp l a i n t( f

o rGB NT bo rr o wer s )

— wou l d r e c e i v e $600 aut om at i cal l y . T hi s s truc ture re fl ect ed the hur dl e pos ed by R E SPA ’ s one- y ears t atut e of l i m i t at i ons , w hich begi ns t o run
“ f r o m th e d a t e of

th e o c c u rr e n c e o f

th e v i o l a t i o n , ” 1 2 U. S
. C. § 2 6 1 4 , i

. e. , th e d a te th e lo a n c lo s e d , s ee, e. g. , Sn o w v . F i rs tA m. Ti t l e I ns . C o. , 332 F. 3d 356, 359–61 ( 5th C i r . 2003). A s the Set t l i ng Par t i es expl ai n, “[t ] hi s w as a negot i at ed compr om i s e of a vi gor ous l ydi s put ed i s s ue”: w hether the nam ed pl ai nt i ffs i n the o th e r f o u r a c tio n s, a s w e ll as th e a b se n t cla ss m e m b e r s , co u ld r ely o n the fi l i ng dat es of the D avis and Ulr i ch c o m p lain ts to m a k e th e ir R E S P A c la im s tim e ly. (S e ttlin g P a rt ie s ’ B r. a t 7 1 .) Cl a s s me mbe r s who s e l o a n s c l o s e d mor e th a n o ne y ear befor e the D avis o r Ulr i ch c o m p lain ts w e re f iled w o u ld a u to m a tic a llyre c e iv e $ 2 5 0 (le ss th a n h a lf o f th e a u to m a tic pay m ent t o clas s m em bers w i th ti m el y cl ai m s)

. H ow ever, these cl as s m ember s w er e el i gi bl e t o r ece i ve an a ddi t i onal $3 02 ( for a t o t a l o f $ 5 5 2 ) b a s e d o n th e i ra n s we r s t o q u e s t i o n s i n a c l a i ms su b m iss io n f

o rm d e sig n e d to d e ter m in e w h e th e r th e yc o u ld re ly on equi t abl e t ol l i ng as a defens e t o the expi r at i on of t he one- y ear lim ita tio n s p e ri o d

. Fi nal l y , cl as s m ember s coul d r ece i ve an a ddi t i onal $325 i f the y r e s i de d i n on e of 21 “ Q ua l i fy i ng St a t e s ” w he r e cl ass c o u n se l d e ter m in e d th a t cla ss m e m b e rs c o u ld h a v e p u rsu e d sta teT he “Q uali fy i ng S t at es” a re: C olor ado , Idaho, I l l i no i s, 5 I n d i a n a , I o w a , K a n s a s , M a i n e , M a ry l a n d , M i s s o u r i , N e w J e r s e y, N or th Ca r o l i n a , Ohi o , Okl ahoma, Penns y l vani a, Sout h C ar ol i na, T ennes s ee, U t ah, W as hi ngton, W i s cons i n, W y om i ng, and V ir g in ia

. F o r e a s e o f

re f e re n c e , w e c o llec tiv e lyre f e r to th e six 6 cons ol i dat ed cl as s act ion s b ef or e us i n thi s appea l as the “cons ol i dat ed Kessler a c tio n .” 16 l a w c l a i ms a g a i n s tCBNV, GNBT, a n d / o rRF C. 5
T h e In iti a l S e ttl e m e n t p ro v id e d f o r “a n e x tr e m e ly g e n e ro u s f

e e ” o f $ 8 .1 m illio n to c la s s c o u n s e l, C om m uni t y Bank I, 418 F. 3 d a t3 1 5 , a n d i n c e n t i v e f e e p a yme n t s t o th e n amed p lain tiff s o f $ 1 ,5 0 0 e a c h

. It a lso in c lu d e d a b ro a d re lea se o f a ll cl ai m s thatw er e ( orcoul d have been) as s ert ed i n the l i t i gat i on. T he r el ease s peci fi cal l yi ncl uded cl ai m s thatcoul d have be en br oughtunderT I L A and H O E PA , i ncl ud ing clai m s foractual d a m a g e s , s ta tu to ry d a m a g e s , a n d re s c is s io n . L e ss th a n a w e e k a f

ter th e S e ttl in g P a rties ’ f iled th e ir m ot i on, the D i s tr i ctC our tent er ed an or d er (1) c ons ol i dat i ng thes e s i x act i ons i nt o the Kessler a c t i o n ( 2 ) “ c o n d i t i o n a l l y” 6 c e rtifyi n g a c las s f

o r se ttl e m e n t p u rp o se s; an d (3 ) p re lim in a rily appr ovi ng the Init i al Set t l ement
. T he C our tal s o di r ect ed that not i ce be s entt o m ember s of th e clas s advi s i ng them of t he se ttl e m e n t an d o f

th e ir rig h t to o p t o u t. L a ter th a t y e a r (in N ovember 2003) , the C our t appr oved the fi l i ng of an a m endedI n C om m uni t y Bank I, w e rej ect ed the O bject ors’ 7 ar gum entthatthe D i s tr i ct C o u rt l acke d s ubj ectm att er j ur i s di ct i on overthe Kessler act i on. T hough no fede r al ques t i on a p p e a re d o n th e f

a c e o f th e in iti a l Kessler c o m p lain t, w e h e ld thatthe fi l i ng of the C ons ol i dat ed A m ended Com pl ai nt

— w hi ch expl i ci t l y as s ert ed fede r al caus es of act i on i n al l six a cti ons ( i ncl u di ng cl ai m s underR E SPA and R I C O )

— cur ed the j ur i s di ct i onal defe ct
. 418 F. 3d at293–98. 17 cons ol i dat ed cl as s act i on compl ai ntact i on foral l s i x act i ons ( the “C o n so li d ated A m en d ed C o m p lai n t”) t o cu re w h at th e C o u rt v iew ed as a pot ent i al j ur i s di ct i onal pr obl em re gar di ng the Kessler act i on (as no t ed, the acti on i nto w hich the si x c lass ac ti o n s h ad b ee n co n so li d ated ). 7 C
. T h e O b

jectors As n o t e d , n o n e o f

th e na med p l a i n t i f

f s b r o u g h tc l a i ms agai ns tthe defenda nt s under T I L A orH O E PA
. T hi s pr om pt ed s ever al pl ai nt i ffs ’ fi r m s

— w hom w e s hal l r efe rt o col l ect i vel yas “couns el for the O bj ect or s ”— t o m ai l l ett er s t o m ember s of the p u t a t i v e c l a s s u r g i n g th e m t o c o mmu n i c a t e wi th th o s e l a w f i r ms re g a rd in g th e se ttl e m e n t, a n d , in so m e in sta n c e s, u rg in g th e m to optou t o f t he cl as s . 418 F. 3d at287–88. A pr i nci pal r eas on gi ven w as the al l egedl yi nadequa t e cons i der at i on p aid b ythe de fe nd a nt s fo rr e l e a s e of the c l a s s membe r s ’ TI LA a nd H O EPA c la im s .18 T I L A i s a fede r al cons um erpr ot ect i on s t atut e, i nt ended to p ro m o te th e in f

o rm e d u se o f

c r e d it b yre q u irin g c e rta in uni form di s cl os ur es fr om l ender s . T he statute i s i m pl ement ed b yRe g u l a t i o n Z, 1 2 C. F. R. § § 2 2 6. 1 et s eq . , w hi ch r equi r es cr edi t or s w ho m ake l oans s ecur ed by a borr ow er ’ s p ri n ci pal dw el l i ng t o p rov i de thos e borr ow er s w i th cert ai n m at er i al d is c lo s u re s , i d. § 2 2 6 .1 8 . H O E P A , e n a c ted a s a n a m e n d m e n t to T I L A , appl i es t o a s peci al cl as s of r egul at ed l oans thatar e made at hig h er interest rates an d ar e su b ject t o sp ec ial d iscl o su re re q u ir e m e n ts
. See 1 5 U. S
. C. § 1 6 3 9
. I n p a r t i c u l a r , HO EPA r equi r es l ender s t o discl os e t o thei rborr ow er s the annua l p erc en tage r at e ( “A PR ”) of s um s due forthe us e of moni es lo a n e d a n d t h e a m o u n t o f re g u la r m o n th ly p a ym e n ts
. I d. § 1639( a) ( 2)

. A ccor di ng t o the O bj ect or s , the vas tm aj or i tyof cl as s m ember s ’ l oans ar e s ubj ectt o H O E PA
. L ike clai m s for d am ag es u n d er R E S P A , T IL A /H O E P A d am ag es c lai m s are s u b je c t to a o n e -ye a r s ta tu te o f lim ita tio n s . I

d. § 1 6 4 0 (e). T he O bj ect or s al l ege t hat defe ndant s vi ol at ed TILA and H O E P A b yu n d e rs tating m aterial lythe A P R in the d iscl o su re form s theyw ere requi r ed t o gi ve borr ow er s w hen the l oans cl os ed. T he ca l cul at i on of the A PR m us ti ncorpor at e “f i nance char ges , ” as defi ned i n R egul at i on Z , 12 C
. F
. R
. § 226. 4. See al s o 15 U
. S. C
. § 1605( a)

. A l though fee s fort i t l e abs tr act s and t i t l e exa m i nat i ons or di nar i l y ar e excl uded fr om the def i ni t i on of “fi nance char ges , ” i d. § 226. 4( c) ( 7) ( i ) , an d ther efor e not inco rpo rated into the ca lculati o n o f th e A P R , the O b jectors co n tend ed that the f

ee s ch arg ed b yC N B V an d G N B T w ereT h o u g h n o t th e f o c u s o f th e i ra r g u me n t s o n a p p e a l , we 8 not e thatthe O bjectors al l eged thatdefe ndant s vi ol at ed T IL A /H O E P A in tw o o ther w ay s: (1 ) f ail ing to g ive b o rrow ers a one- page H O E PA di s cl os ur e docum ent thr ee day s pr i or t o the l oan cl os i ng; and ( 2) i ncl udi ng a pr epaym entpenal typr ovi s i on on l oan d o cu m en ts thatdi d noti dent i fyone of the fi ve ci r cumst ance s i n w hi ch the l ender coul d enfor ce thatpr ovi s i on.

“[A ] nycr edi t orw ho fa i l s t o compl yw i th any 9 re q u ire m e n t im p o se d u n d e r” T IL A is l iab le to th e b o rro w e r “ in an amountequal t o the s um of .

. . anyactual damage s us t ai ned b y [ th e b o r r o we r ] a s a r e s u l t o f th e f a i l u r e . ” 15 U
. S
. C. § 1 6 4 0 ( a ) ( 1 )

. I n a d d i t i o n t o a c tu a l d a ma g e s , a v i o l a t i o n o f TI LA w i th r es pect t o a l oan gover ned by H O E PA ent i t l es the borr ow er t o an aw ar d of st atut ory damages i n “an am ountequal t o the s um 19 nei ther“bona f

i de” nor“r eas onabl e”— and thus s houl d have b e e n f a c t o r e d i n t o th e c a l c u l a t i o n o f th e APR , i d. § 2 2 6
. 4 (c)(7)— b ec au se (1 ) no titl e e x am ination s w ere per form ed, and ( 2) no true abs tr act s of t i t le w ere obt ai ned. I ns t ead, the O bj ect or s al l eged thatborr ow er s w er e cha r ged for

“ p ro p e rtyre p o rts” (w h ich a ll e g e d lya re n e ith e r “ tru e ” tit le e x a m i n a t i o n s n o rab s tr a c t s ) b y e n t i t i e s a f f i l i a t e d w i th S h u m w a y, and that thi s char ge w as i l l egal l ym arked up and pa s s ed on t o the b o rrow er. 8 Th e Obj e c t o r s c o n t e n d th a te a c h c l a s s me mb e r ’ s c l a i ms underT I L A / H O E PA ar e w or th as m uch as $ 52, 000 perl oan, w hich fi gu re i ncludes actual, st atutory , and res ci ssi on dam ages. 9of al l fi nance char ges and fe es pai d by the cons um er , unl es s the c re d ito r d e m o n s tr a te s th a t th e f a ilu re to c o m p ly is n o t m a te ri a l.” I d. § 1640( a) ( 4)

. F i n a l l y , w hen a borr ow er exer ci s es the r i ghtof re sc iss io n (a s a re su lt o f a v io latio n o f

T IL A ), h e o r sh e is e n tit led to a re tu rn o f

a ll fin a n c e a n d o th e r c h a rg e s m a d e in c o n n e c tio n w ith th e lo a n . See i d. § 1 6 3 5
. I n a cl ass a ct i on as s ert i ng a vi ol at i on of TILA , the t ot al cl as s r eco v erym aynotexce ed $500, 000 orone per centof the c re d ito r’ s n e t w o rt h (w h ic h e v e r i s le s s ). I d. § 1 6 4 0 (a)(2)(B ). T h e P a rties d o n o t d isp u te, ho w e v e r, th a t th is ca p d o e s n o t ap p ly to th e s p e c ia l H O E P A s ta tu to ry d a m a g e s p ro v is io n . See E liz a b e th R e n u a rt & K a th le e n K e e s t, Truth i n Lendi ng § 8. 8. 3. 1, at626 ( N at ’ l C ons um erL aw C tr . , 6th ed. 2007 & Supp. 2009) (cit ing 1 5 U
. S
. C
. § 1 6 4 0 (a)(4)). 20 Toge the rw i th the de fe nd a nt ’ s po t e nt i a l l i a bi l i tyun de rRE SPA ( i ncl udi ng tr ebl ed damages ) , the O bj ect or s cont en d tha tthe actual val ue of the cl ai m s bei ng r el eas ed i s al m os t$3 b i l l i on (ap p rox im ately$ 6 7 , 0 0 0 p er c lass m em b er). B y O ct ober 2003, 435 cl as s m ember s had opt ed o u t of the cl as s s ett l eme nt
. T w o w eeks l at er , the D i s tr i ct C our t

— “w i thoutconducti ng a hea r i ng, s ett i ng a br i efi ng s chedul e orotherw i s e al l ow ing [the O bj ect or s ] anypr act i cal oppor tuni tyt o be hea r d”— gr ant ed the Sett l i ng P art i es ’ j oi nt m o tio n to in v a l i d a t e th o s e o p t- o u ts
. C om m uni t y Bank I, 418 F .3 d a t 2 8 8 . T h e C o u rt e n ter e d a n o rd e r th a t “f o llo w e d v e rb a tim the O r derpr opos ed bythe [S] ett l i ng [P] arti es” e xt endi ng the o p t- o u t p e ri o d to N o v e m b e r 2 0 0 3
. I d. Fi nal l y , the C o u rt21 ent er ed an ord er ba rr i ng the obj ect i ng l aw fi r m s fr om comm uni cat i ng w i th anym emberof the cl as s , and deni ed the O bj ect or s ’ m ot i on t o i nt ervene “ w i thout ex p l anat i on. ” I d. at 2 8 9 , 2 9 1
. D
. T he Pr i orA ppeal T he D i s tr i ctC o u rthel d a hea r i ng on the fa i rnes s of the I ni t i al Set t l ementon N ovemb er 1 4, 2003, and hea r d ar gum ent fr om the Sett l i ng Par t i es and the O bj ect or s . O n D ec em ber4, 2 0 0 3 , the C o u rt e n ter e d a f in a l o rd e r a p p ro v in g th e se ttl e m e n t. T he O bj ect or s t i m el yappea l ed. I n C om m uni t

y B a nk I, w e v ac ated the D istri ct C o u rt ’s c e rt if ic a tio n o f

th e c las s a n d a p p ro v a l o f th e se ttl e m e n t, concl udi ng thatthe C o u rt h ad err ed i n s ever al w ay s , i ncl udi ng by : ( 1) fai l i ng t o m ake a n i ndepende nt i nqui ry as t o w hetherthe R u le 2 3 c las s ac tio n re q u ire m e n ts w e re sa tisf ied ; (2 ) im p ro p e rly e n jo in in g c o u n se l f

o r th e O b

jec to rs f ro m c o m m u n ica tin g w ith a b se n t cla ss m e m b e rs; a n d (3 ) d e n y in g th e O b jec to rs’ m o tio n to i nt ervene w i thout“r ea soni ng ordi s cus s i on. ” Id

. at31 4. A s a r es ul t , w e dec l i ned “t o addr es s defi ni t i vel ythe s ubs t ant i ve natur e of the s ett l ement
. ” Id

. at318. W i th resp ec t t o the D istri ct C o u rt ’s ce rt ifi ca ti o n d ec i s i on, w e concl uded t hat t hr ee of t he four R u le 23( a) req u ir em en ts— n u m ero sity , typ icali ty , an d co m m o n ali ty

— w ere m e t, as w e ll a s th e R u le 2 3 (b )(3 ) p re d o m in a n c e a n d su p e rio rity22 re q u ir e m e n ts
. Id

. at30 3– 10
. W e exp res sed ser i ou s conce rns, how ever , as t o w hetherthe ade quacyr equi r ementof R ul e 23( a) coul d be m et , s peci fi cal l y i n the cont ext of w hether the nam ed p lai nti ffs and cl ass cou nsel w ere adeq uate repr esent at i ve s in lig h t o f th e irf a ilu re to a s s e rt c o lo ra b le T IL A /H O E P A c la im s . W e w er e part i cul ar l yconce rned i n Comm u n i t y Bank I w i th the Sett l i ng Par t i es ’ i nvoki ng the s t atut e- of- l i m i t at i ons d e f e n s e t o j u s t i f

y d e c l i n i n g t o b r i n g T I L A / H O E P A c l a i m s . We not ed t hat the S ett l i ng Par t i es themsel ves had r epr es ent ed t o our C our tand the D i s tr i ctC our tthat“appr oxi m at el y14, 000 m ember s of the cl as s have l oans that

. . . cl os ed ‘ w i thi n one y ear of the dat e of f

i l i ng of the r elev an tcompl ai nt
. ’ ” I d. at305. A ccor di ngl y , i t “appe ar [ed] that one- thi r d of t he cl as s m ayhave a f f ir m a tiv e T IL A a n d H O E P A c la im s th a t a re n o t tim e b a rr e d .” I d. W e d o u b ted w h ethe r th e n am ed p lai n ti ff s’ i n ter e s ts w ere
“ su f f icie n tly a lig n e d w ith th o se o f th e a b se n t c las s m e m b e rs” if th e Di s tr i c tCo u r t d e t e r mi n e d th a tth e TI LA/ HOEP A c l a i ms w ere “v iable,” n o ti n g that, “[ b ]e c a u se th e o n e-y ea r st atuto ry per i od forfi l i ng an af fi r m at i ve TILA orH O E PA cl ai m has l aps ed forall named pl ai nt i ffs , [they ] appea rt o have no i ncent i ve t o m axi m i ze s uch cl ai m s for the appr oxi m at el y14, 000 cl as s m em b ers w ho m ays t i l l r et ai n thi s val uabl e ca us e of act i on. ” I

d. at306–07. In th a t li g h t, “[ a ]t th e v e rylea st . . . c o n sid e ra tio n sh o u ld have been gi ven t o the feas i bi l i ty of di vi di ng the cl as s i nt o s ubc las se s s o th a t a c o u rt e x a m in in g th e p ro p o se d se ttl e m e n t co u ld23 h a v e ju d g e d th e f

a irn e ss o f th e se ttl e m e n t as it ap p lied to s i m i l ar l y s i tuat ed cl as s m ember s . ” I d. at307. W e thus di r ect ed that, shou l d the D i stri ctC ou rtfi nd on rem and th a tcl ass cert i fi cat i on i s appr opr i ate, ital s o “s houl d det erm i ne w hether s ubcl as s es ar e nec es s aryorappr opr i at e. ” Id

. a t 3 1 0
. W e a l s o e x p r e s s e d c o n c e rn o v e rwhe th e r“ th e a bs ent cl ass m e m b ers ’ i nter est s w ere s uff i ci entl ypu rs ued bycl ass couns el ”: W e have al r eadynot ed tha t c l as s couns el never assert ed co l orabl e T ILA and H O E P A cl ai m s. H ow ever , thos e cl ai m s w er e partof the s ett l ement r el eas e. Fai l ur e t o pur s ue s uch cl ai m s m ay su g g e st th a t cla ss c o u n se l [ a b d ica ted ] th e ir d u tyto the cl as s i n favor of t he enorm ous cl as s - act i on fee off ered bydefe nd ants
. I d. a t 3 0 7

– 0 8
. Th o u g h we e mph a s i z e d th a t we wer e not “precl ud [i ng ] the p o ss ib il i tythat the ad equ acyof class r epr es ent at ion c [oul d] be es t abl i s hed on a mor e deve l oped re c o rd ,” w e “ in stru c ted [ th e C o u rt] to e x a m in e c a re f u llyth is m att eron r emand. ” I

d. at308. E
. T he Pr ocee di ngs on R emand

1
. T h e H

obs on A ct i on24 T o b e g i n, w e no t e ano ther putat i ve n at i on w i de clas s act i on r el evantt o ( though not a part of) thes e appea l s . W hi l e the appea l i n C om m uni t

y Bank I

w as pend ing , couns el forthe O bj ect or s fi l ed a put at i ve nat i onw i de cl as s ac ti on— capt i oned H o b s o n v . Ir w in U

n io n B a n k

a n d T r u s t C o . , e t a l.— i n the fede r al D i s tr i ctC our tfor the N or thern D i s tr i ctof A l abama. A c c o rd in g to th e O b

je c to rs , H

obs on “w as fi l ed to addr es s the i nadequa cy of t he Sett l i ng Pl ai nt i ffs and thei rfai l ur e t o pur s ue, b u t n o n e th e les s re lea se , T IL A /H O E P A c laim s,” a s w e ll as to r epresentper s ons w ho ( 1) w er e vi ct i m s of the Shum w ay pr edat oryl endi ng s ch em e, but( 2) w hos e l oans w er e not p u rch ase d b y R F C (an d thu s d id no t fa ll w ith in th e c la ss). (O b jectors’ B r. , N o . 0 8 -36 2 1 , at 22
. ) I n M ay2005, the J udi ci al Panel forM ul t i di s tr i ct L i t i gat i on tr ans ferred H obs on t o the W es t ern D i s tr i ctof Penns y l vani a. A ft erourr emand i n C om m uni t y Bank I, the att orney s forthe H

obs on pla in ti ffs fi l ed (1) a m oti on for cl ass cert i fi cat i on ( i n H

obs on ) , ( 2) a m ot i on t o appoi nt one of the l aw fi r m s r epr es ent i ng the O bj ect or s

— W al t er s , B ender , St r ohbehn & V aughn— as i nt er i m l ead c l as s couns el ( i n the H obs on act i on, as w el l as the cons ol i dat ed Kessler a c tio n ), an d (3 ) a m o tio n to f ile a P ro p o se d S e c o n d A m e n d e d C las s A c tio n C o m p lain t (in the cons ol i dat ed Kes s l era c tio n ).

2
. T h e O b

jec to rs W ith d ra w T h e ir M o tio n to I nt ervene25 I n N ovember2005, the D i s tr i ctC our t hel d a conf er ence c a ll w ith c o u n se l f

o r th e S e ttl in g P a rties a n d th e O b jec to rs to di s cus s how t o pr ocee d o n r emand. C l as s couns el advi s ed the C our tthati ti nt ended t o cont i nue t o pur s ue appr oval of the I ni t i al Set t l ement
. T he C our t then as ked M i chae l V aughn, E s q. ( of the W al t er s , B enderfi r m ) w hether he s t i l l w i s hed t o pur s ue i nt ervent i on. M r . V aughn r es ponded no, ex p lai ni ng thathe bel i eved the tr ans ferof H obs on t o the M D L pr ocee di ng w as an adequat e w ayt o s eek the as s ert i on of the pot ent i al T I L A / H O E PA cl ai m s , and thatthe i nt ervent ion is s ue had es s ent i al l ybeen “ m oot [ed] bythe M D L tr ans fer ” of H obs on . 3. T he D i s tr i ctC our t ’ s V i abi l i tyB r i efi ng D uri ng the sam e con ference call , the D i stri ctC ou rtal so ap p o inted a S teering C o m m ittee— co m p o sed o f v ariou s law y ers fr om t he l aw fi r m s r epr es ent i ng the cl ass, th e defenda nt s , and the O bj ect o rs— to e s t abl i s h a br i efi ng s chedul e t o addr es s the m erit s o f th e p o tential T IL A /H O E P A claim s. T h e C o u rt expl ai ned thati tenvi s i oned a bi fur cat ed ana l y s i s on r emand: ( 1) i tw ou l d f

i r s ta dd r e s s the vi a bi l i t y of po t e nt i a l TI LA / H O EPA cl ai m s ; and ( 2) then addr es s adequa cyand the otherR ul e 23 el ement s . M r . V aughn agr eed w i th thi s s tructur e: T h e C o u rt: I th in k th e f

irst th in g w e h a v e to d o is det erm i ne the vi abi l i tyof thes e cl ai m s . I f I det erm i ne thattheyar e v iabl e, then I thi nk the ar gum en t as t o w hetherornotthe named26 r epr es ent at i ve y ou have c an ade quat el yr epr es ent thos e mem ber s of y ourcl as s w ho h ave s uch cl ai m s . . . i s Q ues t i on N o. 2. M r. V au g h n : W e a g ree w ith that, Y o u r H o n o r. T he C our t : I f I s ay they ’re notvi abl e bec aus e of s t atut e of l i m i t at i ons , orthe el ement s can’ tbe m et , ors om ethi ng l i ke that , then I thi nk thatthe w i nd m i ghtbe outof y ours ai l s her e. M r. V a u g h n : Y o u r H o n o r, I th in k y o u ’re rig h t. T h e S tee rin g C o m m itt e e n e g o tiate d a b rie f in g sc h e d u le a llo w in g a ll i n ter e ste d p a rties to su b m it b rie f s o n th e v iab ili ty i s s ue. T he s chedul i ng or deral s o p rov ided for a n excha nge of ce rt ain lo an fil es, an d sti p u lat ed that n o o ther fo rm al disco v ery w o u ld o c c u r. C ouns el forthe O bj ect or s and t he def endant s s ubm i t t ed extensi ve b ri efi ng deali ng w i th the T ILA / H O E P A i ssues. C l ass co u n sel , how ever , di d notbr i ef the i s s ue. I ns t ead, they su b m itt e d a f

ilin g to th e D istric t C o u rt sta tin g th a t th e y(i)

“ e x p e c t[ e d ] th a t c o u n se l f o r th e D e f

e n d a n ts g ro u p w ill f

ile w ith the C our t an i ni t i al ‘ vi abi l i ty ’ br i ef t hatthor oughl ydi s cus s es the lega l bac k d rop o f th e c lass-ba sed T IL A /H O E P A claim s tha t are i n di s put e, ” and ( i i ) concl uded, “af t er m uch re fl ect i on, that[the] C ou rtw ou l d n ot benefitfrom a brief by[t he n am ed p l ai nti ffs]27 thatw oul d di s cus s m uch o f the s ame author i tys etfor th i n the in iti a l b rie f f

iled b yth e D e f

e n d a n ts.” C o u n se l “e lec ted to w a it an d s e e whi c h a r g u me n t s . . . a r e a d v a n c e d i n the i ni t i al s ubm i s s i on” bythe O bj ect or s , and ther eaf t erfi l e a br i ef

w ith a c o m p re h e n siv e re c itatio n o f re lev a n t f

a c ts thatdemonstr at es : 1) w hat[couns el ] lear ned thr ough thei ri nves t i gat i o n i nt o the under l y i ng conducti n di s put e; 2) how that fac tual info rm ati o n b ea rs upon t he cl as s - bas ed T I L A / H O E P A the or i es ati s s ue; and[] 3) the s tr at egyunder l y i ng the s peci fi c l egal cl ai m s that they el ect ed t o pur s ue i n thi s l i t i gat i on, gi ven the f a c ts th a t th e yle a rn e d in th e irin v e s tig a tio n . T hough cl ass couns el i n fac ts ubm i t t ed thi s br i ef, the D i s tr i ct C our t , as w e di s cus s bel ow , d id notdi s cus s i ti n rul i ng on the v ia b ility q u e s tio n .

4. T he M odi fi ed Sett l ement A s the part i es w er e br i efi ng the vi abi l i tyi s s u e, the S e ttl in g P a rtie s e n ter e d in to n e w se ttl e m e n t n e g o tiatio n s to
“ e x p lo re a p o s s ib le e n h a n c e m e n t to th e [ In itia l] S e ttle m e n t.” (S e ttl in g P a rties ’ B r. at 2 4 .) C o u n se l f o r th e O b jec to rs in iti a lly part i ci pat ed i n thos e negot i at i ons , i ncl u d i ng uns ucce s s ful m edi at i on befor e ret i r ed D i s tr i ctC our tJ udge N i chol as Pol i t an o f th e D is tr ic t o f

N e w J e rs e y .28 D ur i ng the s um m erof 2006, the Sett l i ng Par t i es ( w ho w er e notj oi ned bycouns el forthe O bj ect or s ) n egot i at ed an “enha nced” s ett l ement( the “M odi fi ed Sett l ement ”) w i th the assi st anc e o f

form er Th i rd C i rcui tJudg e T i m othyL ew i s. A ccor di ng t o the Sett l i ng Par t i es , “[t ] he r enew ed s ett l ement neg oti at i on s co n sid ered the all eged m on et arydam ages C l ass m ember s os t ens i bl ycoul d have s oughtas s um i ng . . . thatthe p o site d T IL A /H O E P A c laim s h a d b e e n p lea d e d a n d c o u ld p o tential lysu rviv e a R u le 12 (b) m o ti o n . ” (S ett li n g P arti es’ B r. at 25. ) T he Set t l i ng Par t i es det erm i ned that the pot ent i al “ac tual ” ( i

. e. , co m p en sato ry ) da m ag es th e O bjec tors w ere c l a i mi n g u n d e rTI LA/ HO EPA a mou n t e d t o , o n a v e r a ge, a p p ro x im a te ly $ 4 1 5 p e r l o a n . (I d. ) H ow ever , beca us e of “D efe ndant s ’ per cept i o n of the s tr ength of thei rs t atut e of l i m i t at i ons . . . defe ns es , ” they r efus ed t o m ake anyad d it i onal pay m ents t o any m em ber of the C l ass i n ex chan ge fo r the rel ease of thei r pot enti al T ILA / H O E P A l i ab i l i tyw i tho ut fi rs t det erm i ni ng w hether a gi ven C l as s M emberhad s om e bas i s for r el y i ng on equi t abl e t ol l i ng. A ccor di ng ly , the Sett l i ng Par t i es pr opos ed a cl aim form cont ai ni ng the fol l ow i ng ques t i ons for class m em b ers to a n sw er: 1. D i d y ou r ead y ourSet t l ementSt at ement ( Form H UD

- 1 ) p r i o rt o o b t a i n i n g y our l oan? 2
. A t th e tim e th a t yo u o b ta in e d y o u r . . . l oan, di d y ou bel i eve that the St at ementof29 S ett lem en t C h arg es li sted o n y o u r H U D -1 w as acc ur at e? 3
. A t th e tim e th a t yo u o b t a i n e d y o u r . . . l oan, di d y ou bel i eve thatthe Sett l ement C har ges l i s t ed on y ourH U D

- 1 w ere for s ervi ces actual l yper form ed? 4
. At th e t i me th a t y o u o b t a i n e d y o u rCB NV [orG N B T ] l oan, di d y ou bel i eve thatthe S ett lem en t C h arg es li sted o n y o u r H U D -1 w er e r eas onabl e and appr opr i at e? T he M odi fi ed Set t l ement pr ovi ded that i f a cl as s m ember r es ponds t o thes e quest i ons “appr opr i at el y , ” he ors he i s ent i t l ed t o an addi t i onal $332, r epr es ent i ng appr oxi m at el y80% of the cl as s m ember ’ s pot ent i al actual damages underT I L A and H O E PA
. T he def

endan ts agr eed t o payup t o an addi t i onal $ 1 4 .6 m illio n to th o s e p e rs o n s , f o r a to ta l o f

$ 4 7 .6 m illio n . I n addi t i on, the M odi fi ed S ett l ement r educe d the amount o f a tto rn e y s’ f

e e s th a t cla ss c o u n se l w o u ld p e tit io n th e C o u rt to app rove from $8

. 1 m i l l i on to $7

. 5 m i l l i on . D efen dan t s al so agr eed t o pay“up t o an addi t i onal $2 [m i l l i on] i n att orney s ’ fee s and cost s”— presum a bly , t o co un sel for the O bject ors— “i f so or der ed bythe C our t
. ” The M odi fi ed Sett l ementfol l ow ed the te rm s o f th e In itia l S e ttle m e n t in a ll o th e r m a te ri a l r e s p e c ts
.A tthe out s etof the hea r i ng, cl as s couns el not i fi ed the 10 C o u rt o f th e M o d if

ie d S e ttle m e n t.

30 5. T he D i s tr i ctC our tD et erm i nes the T IL A /H O E P A C laim s A re N o t V iab le T h e D istric t C o u rt h e ld o ra l ar g u m e n t o n th e v iab ili ty i s s ues i n J ul y2006. I tas ked C ouns el fo r th e O bj ect or s w hat 10 “s t andar d” i tsh o u ld use t o det erm i ne the vi abi l i tyof the T IL A /H O E P A c laim s. C o u n se l f o r th e O b

je c to rs a g re e d w ith th e D i s tr i c tC o u r tth a to u rC o u r th a d i n t e n d e d f o ri tt o a p p l y a R ul e 12( b) ( 6) s t andar d, as di d cl as s couns el

. A tthe s ame t i m e, C ouns el for the O bj ect or s ar gued thatthe s t atut e- of- l i m i t at i ons d e f e n se c o u ld n o t b e d e ter m in e d u sin g su c h a sta n d a rd , as it pr es ent ed fa ctual ques t i ons that “[r ] ar el y can . . . be di s pos ed of by

. . . a mot i on t o di s m i s s . ” B ycontr as t , couns el forthe d e f e n d a n t s a r g u e d th a t a Rul e 1 2 ( b ) ( 6 ) s t a n d ar d w as i nappr opr i at e, ar gui ng thatour C our t “di d notcont empl at e that thi s vi abi l i ty s t andar d

. . . coul d be s at i s fi ed j us t by s how i ng the 12( b) ( 6) s t andar d w as s at i s fi ed. ” T he D i stri ct C ou rt dis agreed w i th th e defe nd ants ’ couns el , expl ai ni ng thatthe ques t i on s houl d be w hether , “t aki ng [the O bj ect or s ’ ] al l egat i ons as true, does a cl ai m exi s tunder T I L A orH O E PA ?” T he C our ts t at ed thati tbel i eved s uch a ca u se o f a cti o n co u ld b e a d eq u atelystat ed u n d er R u le 12 (b)(6 ), bu t charact eri zed the m eri t s of t he st atute- of-l i m i t at i on s defen se as a “t ough one. ”31 I n O ct o b er 2 0 06, the D i s tr i ctC our ti s s ued a 33- page
“ M e m o r a n d u m ” (th e “ 2 0 0 6 M e m o ra n d u m ” ) in w h ich it d e t e rmi ned thatthe pr opos ed TILA / H O E PA cl ai m s fordamages an d resc issi o n w e re n o t viab le. A t th e o u tset , the C o u rt expl ai ned thati thad i nt erpr et ed ourdeci s i on i n C om m un ity B a n k I as di r ect i ng i tt o appl ya hybr i d s t andar d of rev i ew . N amel y , the courtof appe al s di r ect ed t hi s courtt o exami ne w h e th e r th e C las s P lain tiff s w e re in a d e q u a te r epr es ent at i ves underR ul e 23. T he courtof appea l s ques t i oned w heth erthe C l as s Pl ai nt i ffs w ere inad eq u ate if the yfa il ed to as sert T ILA / H O E P A cl ai m s that w ere “vi able. ” T hu s, it ap p e a rs th a t th e c o u rt o f a p p e a ls in ten d e d th is co u rtto exami n e w h ethe r th e C lass P lai n ti ff s w ere i nad equ at e repr esent at i ves un der R ule 23 be cause they fai l ed t o as s ertT I L A / H O E PA cl ai m s w hi ch c o u ld h a v e su rv iv e d a R u le 1 2 (b )(6 ) m o tio n to dis m i ss. I n th e e n d , th e Cou r ta g r e e d wi th th e d e f e n d a n t s ’ “ p r i nci pal ar gum ent ” r egar di ng the vi abi li tyques t i on: “thatthe T I L A / H O E PA cl ai m s for damages ar e notvi abl e bec aus e they ar e t i m e barr ed. ” W e d i s c u s s th e Di s tr i c t Cou r t ’ s v i a b i l i ty c o n c l u s i o ns at len g th b e lo w . T o su m m a riz e , it f irst a g re e d w ith th e d e f

e n d a n tsIn F e b ru a ry2 0 0 8 , the O b jec to rs f iled w ith o u r C o u rt a 11 pet i t i on for m andamus and perm i s s i on t o appea l underFeder al R ul e of Ci vi l Pr ocedur e 23( f)

. W e deni ed that pet i t i on i n M ar ch 2 0 0 8
. 32 thatno cl as s m embercoul d br i ng a t i m el y cl ai m under T I L A or H O E PA for damages or r es ci s s i on, as no s uch am ended p le adi ng coul d s at i s fythe r equi r ement s of Feder al R ul e of Pr ocedur e 1 5 (c), and thus coul d notr el at e bac k t o anyear l i er compl ai nti n the cons ol i dat ed Kessler act i on. I n addi t i on, the C our tdet erm i ned ( w hi l e appl y i ng a R ul e 12( b) ( 6) s t andar d) that n o c las s m e m b e r co u ld re ly o n e q u itab le to lli n g to s a v e th e ir otherw i se t i m e-barred cl ai m s. T h e O b jec to rs f iled a m o tio n a sk in g th e D istric t C o u rt to re c o n sid e r its 2 0 0 6 M e m o ra n d u m , a n d a ltern a tiv e ly a sk e d it t o c e rtify th e M e m o ra n d u m f o r a n in ter lo c u to ry a p p e a l p u rsu a n t to 28 U
. S
. C
. § 1 29 2(b). T he C ou rtden i ed b oth m oti on s. 11

6. T he D i s tr i ctC our tA ppoi nt s a “ F ri end of th e C o u rt” T he D i s tr i ctC our thel d a confe r ence cal l w i th couns el for the Sett l i ng Par t i es and the O bj ect or s on D ece m ber1, 2006, and e x p re ss e d its in ten t to a p p o in t an “ in d e p e n d e n t b o d y ” to ev alua te th e f

airne ss o f th e M o d if

ied S ett lem en t. T h e C o u rt m a d e c lea r th a t itw o u ld n o t a sk th is “ in d e p e n d e n t b o d y ” to
“ e v a lu a te th e c a se in ter m s o f w h e th e r th e re q u ire m e n ts o f R u leT h e O b jec to rs r e n e w th a t c h a llen g e b e f o re o u r C o u rt, 12 ar gui ng thatthe D i s tr i ctC our t ’ s appoi nt m en tof J udge Zi egl er w as im p rop er b ec au se h e w as n o t app o inted a s a n e x p ert or a s p e c ia l m a s te r. See F e d

. R
. C iv

. P . 5 3 (c ); s ee al s o Manualf

or Comp l ex Li t igat i on (F o u rth ) § 2 1 .6 3 2 (2 0 0 4 ) (“ W h e th e r the case has been c ert i fi ed as a cl as s at an ear l i ers t age orpr es ent ed for cert i fi cat i on and s ett l ementappr oval at the s ame t i m e, the j udge can ha ve a c our t
- appoi nt ed expe r tors peci al m as t er r evi ew the p ro p o se d se ttl e m e n t te rm s, g a th e r in f o rm a tio n n e c e ss a ryto un de r s t a nd ho w tho s e t e r ms a ff e c tthe a bs e ntc l a s s mem bers, and assi stthe judge i n d et erm ini ng w hetherthe fa i rness , rea so n ab lene ss, and ad eq u ac yreq u ir em en ts fo r ap p rov al are m et
. ”)

. B eca us e the O bj ect or s di d notchal l enge the appoi nt m entu nt i l or al ar gum entbefor e J udge Zi egl er

— and des pi t e havi ng s i x w eeks betw ee n recei vi ng not i ce of the 33 23 have be en metornot
. ” C ouns el for the O bj ect or s r ai s ed no obj ect i on t o the C our t ’ s pr opos al atthi s t i m e. T he C our tl at erchos e r et i r ed C hi ef J udge D onal d Z i egl er o f th e D istric t C o u rt f

o r th e W e ste rn D istric t o f P e n n sy lv a n ia to s erve as a “f

r i end of the court , ” and t o pr ovi de a “ non -bin di ng advi s oryopi ni on” as t o w hetherthe M odi fi ed Set t l ementw as “fa i rand r eason abl e” unde rR ul e 23. I n M ar ch 2007, the S e ttl in g P a rties a n d th e O b jec to r s p r e se n ted o ra l ar g u m e n ts to Ju d g e Z ieg ler re g a rd in g th e f a irn e ss o f th e M o d if

ied S e ttl e m e n t. H ow ever , couns el forso m e o f the O bj ect or s obj ect ed t o the pr oces s , ar gui ng t o J udge Zi egl erthathi s appoi nt m entw as im p rop er. 12a p p o in tm e n t an d th e a rg u m e n t— th e yh a v e w a iv e d th is c h a lle n g e , a n d w e d e c lin e to a d d re s s it. S ee , e. g. , Faj ar do Sh o p p i n gCtr . , S

. E. v . Su n Al l i a n c e I n s . Co. o f P. R. , 167 F. 3d 1, 6 ( 1 s t Cir. 1999). 34 J udge Zi egl eri s s ued hi s adviso ryopi ni on i n J ul y2007, an d co n clud ed that the M o d ifi ed S ett lem en t w as f air, r eas onabl e, and ade quat e. H e r eas oned thatthe named pl ai nt i ffs f a c e d sig n if

ica n t o b sta c les to th e ir R E S P A a n d R IC O c laim s if the cas e pr ocee ded t o tr i al , i ncl udi ng the pos s i bi l i ty th at t h ey w oul d be unabl e t o pr ove thatdefe ndant s had cha r ged them fees ( e. g. , t i t l e fe es and or i gi nat i on fee s ) fors ervi ces thatw er e not actual ly p erfor m ed. H ow ever , J udge Zi egl erdi d notcons i der w hethert he M odi fi ed Sett l ementw as fai ri n the cont extof the O bj e c t or s ’ a r gu ment s tha tt he cl a s s membe r s ’ TI LA / H O EPA cl ai m s w er e si gni fi cant l y m or e val uabl e, not i ng thatthe D i s tr i ct C o u rt “ h a [ d ] a lre a d yc o n c lu d e d th a t th e re a re n o v iab le T IL A /H O E P A c laim s” a n d th a t h e w a s n o t au th o riz e d to “ re v isit thati s s ue. ” 7. T he D i stri c t C ou rtD enies the O bject ors’

R enew ed M o t i on t o I n t e r vene, C ondi t i onall yR e- C ert i fi es the C l as s , and Pr el i m i nar i l yA ppr oves the M odi fi ed Set t l ement B ythe F all o f 20 0 7 , the S ett li n g P arti es an d the O b jectors had ful l ybr i efe d the S ett l i ng Par t i es ’ m ot i on forcondi t i onal r e-35 cert i fi cati o n o f the cl as s and pr el i m i naryappr oval of the M odi fi ed Sett l ement
. A ft era heari ng on thos e mot i ons , on N ovember9, 2007, the W al t er s , B ender fi r m fi l ed a “ r enew ed” m ot i on t o i nt ervene i n the cons ol i dat ed Kes s l eract i on, ar gui ng thatthe M odi fi ed Sett l ementw as the pr oductof col l us i on betw een class cou nsel and cou nsel for defen dan t s. I n J anuary2008, the D i s tr i ctC our tcondi ti onal l yr ecert i fi ed the C l as s , pr el i m i nar i l yappr oved the M odi fi ed Set t l ement , r e- appoi nt ed cl as s couns el , and r e-a ppoi nt ed the named pl ai nt i ffs as cl as s r epr es ent at i ves . T he C our tal s o deni ed the O bj ect i ng C l as s M ember ’ s R enew ed M ot i on t o I nt ervene a s unt i m el y , s t at i ng that th e O b jec to rs o ra llyw ith d re w th e ir m o tio n to i nt ervene i n N ovemberof 20 0 5
. A l though the c o u r t w ill d ire c t th e S e ttl in g P a rties to su b m it a r evi s ed not i ce pl an and pr ovi de the cl as s w i th an a d d i t i o n a l p e r i o d t o o p to u t , u n d e rth e u ni que circu m stan ce s o f th is case , the O b jectors[ ’] r enew ed mot i on i s unt i m el y . . . . T heyhave id e n tifie d n o p e rsu a siv e re a so n w h y th e yf a iled to p u rsu e in ter v e n tio n in th e in ter im o th e r th a n th e ir di s s at i s fac t i on w i th the court ’ s rul i ngs t o dat e. T h e Se t t l i n g Pa r t i e s th e n f i l e d a p r o p o s e d p l a n for d issem inating n o ti ce to the class, w h ich th e D istri ct C o u rt appr oved. O nl y 55 m ember s s ubm i t t ed t i m el yopt
- out s . A m ong36 t he c l a s s me mbe r s who c h o s e n o t t o o p t o u t wer e th e named pl ai nt i ffs i n t he H

obs on a c tio n . 8. T he D i s tr i ctC our tC ert i fi es the C l as s and A ppr oves the M odi fi ed Sett l ement T he D i s tr i ctC our thel d a fi nal fai rnes s h ear i ng on J une 30, 2008, dur i ng w hi ch i thear d atl ength fr om cl as s couns el and couns el forthe O bj ect or s . T he O bj ect or s ar gued, among ot her thi ngs , that( 1) the C our terr ed w hen i t appoi nt ed J udge Zi egl er t o i s s ue an advi s oryopi ni on on the fa i rnes s of the M odi fi ed Set t l ement ; ( 2) the M odi fi ed Settl em en tdi d notextr act s uf fi c i e ntc on si der a t i on fo rthe c l a s s membe r s ’ TI LA / H O EPA cl ai m s ( orthe R E SPA , R I C O , and s t at e la w cl ai m s the named pl a i nt i ff s ha d p l e d) ; a nd ( 3) the de fe nd a nt s

— i n p a r t i c ul a rRFC and PN C B ank ( the s ucce s s or t o C B N V )

— coul d w i ths t and a f ar g re a te r j u d g m e n t. O n A ugus t14, 2008, the C our ti s s ued a M emora ndum and O r dercert i fy i ng the cl as s and appr ovi ng the modi fi ed s ett l ement
. W i th r es pectt o the ade quacyr equi r ement , i tr el i ed s ol el yon i t s 2006 M emora ndum , i n w hi ch i thad

c o n c l u d e d th a tth e [ p r o p o s e d T I L A/ HOE P A] claim s w ere ti m e-b a rred

. T h u s, C lass C o u n sel’s stra teg ic d e c isio n to p u rsu e o th e r le g a l th e o rie s in this case in n o w ayren d ers the m inad eq u ate. I n a n ye v e n t, .
. . th e p ro p o se d se ttl e m e n t ac c o u n ts37 f o r th e risk th a t so m e m e m b e rs o f th e c las s c o u ld ha ve e s t a bl i s he d s us t a i nabl e TI LA / H O EPA claim s an d p rov ides fo r an aw ard w h ere appr opr i at e. A s a r es ul tof thes e det erm i nat i ons , the C our tnevercons i der ed th e c re a tio n o f

a s u b c la s s . T he C our t then exami ned the fai rnes s of th e M odi fi ed Set t l ement i n l i ght of t he fact or s announce d i n G i rs h v. Jeps on , 521 F. 2d 153 ( 3d C i r . 1975) , and concl uded thattheycouns el ed i n favorof appr ovi ng the M odi fi ed Sett l ementas fai r, re a s o n a b le, a n d a d e q u a te. It f u rth e r c o n c lu d e d th a t, notw i ths tand i ng the named pl ai nt i ffs ’ fai l ur e t o br i ng T IL A /H O E P A claim s, the M o d ifi ed S ett lem en t w as f air, rea so n ab le, an d ad eq u ate b ec au se itp rov ided “c lass m em b ers w ith ad d it ion al reli ef

fo r s u ch claim s, ev en tho u g h th[ e] c o u rt found them t o be t i m e- barr ed. ” T h e O b jec to rs tim e lya p p e a led to o u r C o u rt. I I . Juri s di ct i on and St andards of R evi ew Th e Di s tr i c tCo u r tha d j u r i s d i c t i o n u n d e r2 8 U. S
. C. § 1331 beca us e the C ons ol i dat ed A m ended C om pl ai ntas s ert ed c l a i ms u n d e rf

e d e r a l l a w ( i

. e. , R E S P A a n d R IC O ). See C om m uni t

y Bank I, 418 F. 3d at293–98. T he C our thad s uppl ement al j ur i s di ct i on overthe s t at e l aw cl ai m s under2838 U
. S. C
. § 1 3 6 7 (a)

. W e have appel l at e j ur i s di ct i on under28 § U .S .C . 1 2 9 1
. W e r evi ew a di s tri ct court ’ s cert i fi cat i on of a c l as s for a b u s e o f d is c re tio n . I

n r e Sche r i ng P l ough C or p. ER I SA Li t ig. , 5 8 9 F .3 d 5 8 5 , 5 9 5 (3 d C ir. 2 0 0 9 ); C om m uni t y Bank I, 418 F. 3d a t 2 9 8 . A d istric t co u rt a b u se s its d isc re tio n if its “ d e c isio n re sts upon a cl ear l yerr oneous fi ndi ng of fa ct , an err antconcl us i on of l aw , or an i m pr operappl i cat i on of l aw t o fac t
. ” I n r e H ydr ogen P er oxi de Ant i tr us tLi t ig. , 552 F. 3d 305, 312 ( 3d C i r . 2008) (i n terna l qu o tat ion m a rk s an d cit ati o n o m itted). H o w ev er, “w hetheran i ncorr ectl egal s t andar d has been us ed [i n rul i ng on cl as s cert i fi cat i on] i s an i ssu e o f l aw t o be r evi ew ed de novo .” I d. (in ter n a l q u o tatio n m a rk s a n d c itatio n o m itt e d ); acco rd R eg e n ts o

f U n iv

. o f C a l. v . C r e d it S u is s e F irs t B o s to n (U S A), I nc. , 4 8 2 F
. 3 d 3 7 2 , 3 8 0 (5th C ir

. 2 0 0 7 ).
I I I . D i s cus s i on W e b e g i n b yn o t i n g th a t s e v e r a l o f th e Obj e c t o r s ’ c l a i ms o f e rror u n d erw h elm

. In p arti cu lar, w e se e n o thing to su p p o rt th e ir a ttac k s o n th e D istric t C o u rt’s im p a rtiality , o r th e ir r epea t ed i nsinuat i ons thatthe C our ti nt ent i onal l ydi s r egar ded our m anda te i n C om m uni t y Bank I

. Fr om ouri ndepende nt r evi ew of t he re cor d, the C our t m ade gr eat eff or t s t o addr es s the c o n c e rn s w e e x p r e s s e d in o u r p rio r o p in io n , an d a ttem p ted to fo l l ow a n or de r l y pr oc e du r e on r e mand i n rul i ng on cl ass cert i fi cat i on and the fa i rnes s , adequa cy , and r eas onabl ene s s of39 th e se ttl e m e n t. T hat s ai d, w e nonet hel es s concl ude thatthe pr ocee di ngs on rem and w ent off cou rs e. T o p rovi de n eeded con t ext, w e fi rs t di s cus s the l egal s t andar ds thatappl yt o the R ul e 23 r equi r ement s at i s s ue i n thi s cas e, as w el l as the ext entt o w hi ch th e me r i t s o f

s t a tu t e - o f

- l i mi t a t i o n s d e f

e ns e s ma yb e c o me rel evan tt o a d i stri ctcou rt ’s e v a l uati on of those requi rem ents
. W e then turn t o the D i s tr i ct C our t ’ s cert i fi cat i on deci s i on her e, and c o n c l u d e th a t th e Cou r t

— b y a p p r o a c h i n g th e a d e q u a c yof r epr es ent at i on r equi r ement as though i tw er e rul i ng on a mot i on t o am end a pleadi ng un der R u le 15(c), or a m oti on t o d i sm i ss u n d er Rul e 12( b) ( 6)

— engage d i n an ana l y s i s thatw as nei ther requi red nor con t em plat ed by R ule 23

. F rom there, w e dis cuss ourcont i nui ng conce rns r egar di ng w hether the named pl ai nt i ffs and cl as s couns el ar e ade quat e cl as s r epr es ent at i v es, pay i ng p a r t i c u l a ra t t e n t i o n t o : ( a ) th e s t a tu t e - o f

- l i mi t a t i o n s p r o b l e ms f a c e d b y th e n a m e d p l a i n t i f f s ’ c l a i m s ( w h e th e r u n d e rRE S P A, T I L A , orH O E PA ) ; and ( b) cl as s couns el ’ s deci s i on nott o br i ng T IL A /H O E P A c laim s o n b e h a lf o f th e c las s. W e a d d re ss f

in a lly th e O b jec to rs’ a rg u m e n t th a t th e C o u rt a b u se d its d isc re tio n in d e n y in g th e ir re n e w e d m o ti o n to in ter v e n e , as w e ll as th e ir req u est th at w e re assig n this m att er to a d iffe ren t D istri ct C o u rt J u d g e o n re m a n d , b o th o f w h ic h w e re

je c t. A
. C l as s C ert i fi cat i on 1. L egal St andar ds40 “R ul e 23 i s des i gned t o as s ur e thatcourt s w i l l i dent i fythe comm on i nt ere sts of

cl as s m ember s and eva l uat e [( 1) ] the named pl ai n ti ffs ’ and [( 2) ] couns el ’ s abi l i tyt o fai r l yand adequa t el y pr ot ectcl as s i nt er es t s . ” I n r e G ener alMot ors C or p. P i ck- U p Truc k Fuel Tank P r ods

. Li ab. Li t ig. , 55 F. 3d 768, 799 ( 3d C i r . 1995)

. E v ery p u t at i ve cl as s m us ts at i s fythe four r equi r ement s of R ul e 23( a) : ( 1) the cl as s m us t be “s o num er ous thatj oi nderof al l m ember s i s i m pr act i cabl e” ( num er os i ty ) ; ( 2) there m ustbe “q uest i on s of law or factcom m on t o the cl ass” ( comm onal i ty ) ; ( 3) “the cl ai m s or defe ns es of the r epr es ent at i ve part i es” m ust be “typical of the cl ai m s or defenses of the cl ass” ( typi cal i ty ) ; and ( 4) the named pl ai n t i ffs m us t“fa i r l yand ad eq u at el ypr ot ectt he i nt er es t s of the cl as s ” ( adequa cyof r e pr e s e nt a t i on , ors i mpl ya de qu a c y )

. F ed. R. Ci v. P. 23 (a) (1) –(4). If tho se requ i rem ents are m et , a dis tri ct cou rtm ust then fi nd that the cl as s fi t s w i thi n one of the thr ee c at egor i es of c las s a c tio n s in R u le 2 3 (b ). T h e D istric t C o u rt c e rtifie d th is c las s a c tio n u n d e r R u le 2 3 (b )(3 ), w h ich re q u ir e s th a t (i) co m m o n q u esti o n s o f law o r fa ct p red o m inate (p red o m inan ce ), and ( i i ) the cl as s act i on i s the s uper i orm ethod foradj udi cat i on (s u p e ri o ri ty). “C on front ed w i th a requ estfor a set t l em ent- on l ycl ass cert i fi cat i on, a di s tr i ct court need noti nqui r e w hetherthe ca s e, i f tr i ed, w oul d pr es ent i ntr act abl e m anage m entpr obl ems, forthe pr opos al i s thatther e be no tr i al

. ” A m chem P r ods

. , I nc. v. W i nds or , 5 2 1 U
. S
. 5 9 1 , 6 2 0 (19 9 7 ) (i n terna l ci tat ion o m itted). H ow eve r, the “ o ther sp ec ifi ca ti o n s of [Rul e 23]

— thos e des i gned41 t o p rot ect absentees by blocki ng un w arr anted or overbroad c l ass d e f in iti o n s— d e m a n d u n d ilu ted , ev e n h e ig h ten e d , a tten tio n in the s ett l ementcont ext
. ” I d. T h e so le d isp u ted R u le 2 3 re q u ire m e n t in th is ca se , as it w a s in C om m uni t

y Bank I, i s a d e q u a c yo f re p re se n tatio n , b o th as t o the named plai n ti ffs and thei rcouns el

. “The i nqui rythat a cour t sh o u l d m ake r egar di ng the ade quacyof r epr es ent at i on r equi s i t e of Rul e 23( a) ( 4) i s t o det erm i ne thatthe put at i ve named pl ai nt i ff ha s the abi l i tyand the i ncent i ve t o r epr es entthe cl ai m s of the cl as s vigo rou sly , . . . and thatther e i s no confl i ct betw een the i ndi vi dual ’ s cl ai m s and t hos e ass ert ed on beha l f of the cl as s . ” H

as s i ne v. Jef

f es , 8 4 6 F
. 2 d 1 6 9 , 1 7 9 (3d C ir

. 1 9 8 8 ). T hi s i nqui r yi s vi t al , as “cl as s m emb ers w it h di ver gentor con f licting i nter est s [from the n am ed p l ai nti ffs and cl ass couns el ] cannotbe adequ at el yr epr es ent ed .

. . . ” I n r e D i et D r ugs P r ods

. Li ab. Li t ig. , 3 8 5 F
. 3 d 3 8 6 , 3 9 5 (3d C ir

. 2 0 0 4 ). “A l tho ug h q uest i on s conce rni ng the ad equ a cyof class couns el w ere tr adi t i onal l yanal y zed unde rthe ae gi s of the adeq uate r epresent at i on requi rem ent of R ule 23(a) (4)

. . . tho se q u e s tio n s h a v e , s in c e 2 0 0 3 , b e e n g o v e r n e d b yR u le 2 3 (g ).” Shei nber g v. Sor ens on , 606 F. 3d 130, 132 ( 3d C i r . 2010)

. T hat su b sec ti o n li sts sev era l n o n -ex clus ive fa ctors that a d istri ct co u rt m us tcons i deri n determ ini ng “couns el ’ s abi l i tyt o fai r l yand a de qu a t e l yr e pr e s e ntthe i nt e r e s t s of the c l a s s , ” Fe d. R. Ci v. P. 2 3 (g )(1 )(B ), in c lu d in g : (1 ) “ th e w o rk c o u n se l h a s d o n e in i dent i fy i ng ori nves t i gat i ng pot ent i al cl ai m s i n the ac t i on, ” ( 2)42 “couns el ’ s exper i ence i n handl i ng cl as s act i ons , othercompl ex l i t i gat i on, and the typ es o f cl ai m s as s ert ed i n the ac t i on, ” ( 3) “couns el ’ s know l edge of the appl i cabl e l aw , ” and ( 4) “the re s o u rc e s t h a t c o u n s e l w ill c o m m it to re p re s e n tin g th e c la s s .” F e d . R . C iv . P . 2 3 (g )( 1 )( A ).

“ R e a listica lly , fo r p u rp o se s o f d e ter m in in g a d e q u a te r epr es ent at i on, the per form ance of cl as s couns el i s i nt ertw i ned wi th th a t o f th e c l a s s r e p r e s e n t a t i ve. ” P eltv. Utah , 539 F. 3d 1271, 1288 ( 10th C i r . 2008)

. A s ourow n J udge A l d i s erthas exp l ai ne d, “[e]xperi ence teaches that i ti s coun sel for the clas s r epr es ent at i ve and not the named par t i es . . . w ho di r ectand ma n a g e [ c l a s s ] a c t i o n s . E v e ry e x p e r i e n c e d f e d e r a l j u d g e k n o ws th a t a n ys ta te m e n ts to th e c o n tr a ry [ a re ] s h e e r s o p h is tr y .” G r eenf iel d v. V i l lagerI ndus

. , I nc. , 483 F. 2d 824, 832 n. 9 ( 3d C ir

. 1 9 7 3 ). 2. S t atute- of-L i m i t at i on s I ssues atthe C l ass

C ert i fi cat i on St age O b jec to rs a rg u e th a t th e D istric t C o u rt e rre d in cons i der i ng the mer i t s of the defe ndant s ’ s t atut e- of- l i m i t at i ons defe nses t o the po t enti al T ILA / H O E P A cl ai m s i n rul i ng on cl ass cert i fi cat i on. A s not ed, the C our tdet erm i ned thatanypot ent i al cl ai m s pos s es s ed bythe cl as s underT I L A / H O E P A w er e not vi abl e bec aus e theyw er e t i m e- barr ed; thus the named pl ai nt i ffs a n d c l a s s c o u n s e l we r e n o t i n a d e q u a t e f o rf a i l i n g t o b r i n g th e m. R el y i ng on the S upr eme C our t ’ s deci s i on i n E is en v. C ar l is l e &43 J a c q u e lin , 417 U
. S. 156 ( 1974) , the O bj ect or s cont end that“the [D] i s tr i c t[C] ou r t ’ s i nq ui ryi nt o the mer i t s of the TI LA / H O EPA c laim s . . . w a s u n n e c e ss a ryf o r p u rp o se s o f

a R u le 2 3 a n a ly sis and ca nnot b e su s t ai ned as perm i s s i bl e. ” ( O bj ect or s ’ B r . , N o. 0 8 -32 6 1 , at 73
. ) I n E is en , the S upr eme C our t s t at ed t hatther e i s “nothi ng in either the lang u ag e o r historyo f R u le 23 that g ives a c o u rt anyauthor i tyt o conducta pr el i m i naryi nqui ry i nt o the m er i t s of a sui ti n o rdert o d et erm i ne w hetheri tm aybe m ai ntai ned as a cl as s act i on. ” 417 U
. S. at177. A s w e expl ai ned i n H ydr ogen P er oxi de , thi s s t at ementi n E i s en led to “ u n c e rta in ty ” a s to w hetherdi s tr i ctcourt s ar e c at egor i cal l ypr ohi bi t ed fr om eval uat i ng the mer i t s of a c l as s cl ai m at the ce r t i fi cat i on s t age, even w her e mer i t s qu esti o n s over l ap w i th a R ul e 23 r equi r ement
. 552 F. 3d at 316. T hi s t ens i on— betw een a di s tr i ct court ’ s obl i gat i on t o m ake f i ndi ngs r egar di ng the R ul e 23 req u ir em en ts, a n d the a p p are n t bar o n “c o n d u ct[ing ] a p re lim in a ry in q u iry in to th e m e rits of ” a c las s c laim

— is r efl ect ed i n how court s have confr ont ed s t atut e of l i m i t at i ons at th e c la s s c e rt if

ic a tio n s ta g e . I n gener al , a “s t atut e of l i m i t at i ons is a n aff i r m at i ve defe ns e, and the bur den of e s tablishi ng i t s appl i cabi l i tyt o a part i cul arcl ai m r es t s w i th the def en dant

. ” B ra d

fo rd -W h ite C or p. v. E r ns t & W

hi nney , 872 F. 2d 1153, 1161 ( 3d C i r . 1989) (i nternal quotat i on m arks and cit at i on s om i t ted ); see al s o Fed. R
. Ci v . P. 8 ( c )

. Th u s , ma n yc o u r t s h a v e r e f u s e d t o c o n s i derSee, e. g. , I nt ’ l W oodw orker

s of A m . v. C hes apeake B ay 13 P l yw ood C or

p. , 6 5 9 F .2 d 1 2 5 9 , 1 2 7 0 (4 th C ir

. 1 9 8 1 ) (“ C o u rts p a ss in g u p o n m o tio n s f o r c las s c e rtific a tio n h a v e g e n e ra lly r efus ed to c ons i derthe i m pactof s uch af fi r m at i ve def

ens es as the s tatu te o f li m it ati o n s o n the p o tential rep rese n tat ive’s c a se .”); I n r e V M S Sec. Li t ig. , 1 3 6 F .R .D . 4 6 6 , 4 7 7 (N .D . Ill

. 19 91 ) (“[I] nasm uch as the st atute- of-l i m i t at i on s defen se addr es s es the mer i t s of [t he] pl ai nt i ff’ s cl ai m s , i ti s bey ond the sc o p e o f a m o tio n f

o r cl ass ce rtific a tio n .”); I n r e Baldw i n- U

ni t ed C or p. Li t ig. , 122 F. R
. D
. 424, 427 ( S. D
. N
. Y
. 1986) (r eas oni ng th a t d e f e n d a n t’s c h a llen g e to th e c o m m o n a lityre q u ire m e n t, bas ed on i ndi vi dual ques t i ons w i th r es pectt o t i m el ines s, w as “ o u tsid e th e sc o p e o f

R u le 2 3 a n d in d e e d d e f ies th e p rin c ip le enunci at ed i n E is en ”); R is h c o ff v . C o m m o d ity F lu c tu a tio n s S y s ., I nc. , 111 F. R
. D
. 381, 382–83 ( E
. D
. Pa. 1986) ( “[I ] s s ues r el at i ng t o w h et hercert ai n cl ai m s m aybe barr ed bythe s t atut e of l i m i t at i on s ar e i rr el evan tt o the que st i on of w hethera cl ass s houl d be ce r t i fi ed and w i l l notbe cons i der ed i n det erm i ni ng the p rop ri etyo f a ll o w ing the c ase to p roc ee d a s a c lass ac ti o n . ”); D am er on v. Si naiH

os p. of B al t
. , I nc. , 595 F. Supp. 1404, 1409 (D

. M d. 19 84 ) ( refusi ng t o “cloud the is sue of adeq u a te r epr es ent at i on [un d erR ul e 23] w i th the s t atut e of l i m i t at i ons p ro b lem ,” a n d n o tin g th a t “[ i]f th e n a m e d p lain tiff ’s c laim is b a r r e d b y [ th e ] s t a tu t e o f l i mi t a t i o n s , a p r o p e r p l a i n t i ff may be su b sti tu te d to rep rese n t th e c lass”); C heval i erv. B ai r d Sav. A ss’n , 72 F. R
. D
. 140, 150 ( E
. D
. Pa. 1976) ( “Si nce t he mer i t s of 44 s t atut e- of- l i m i t at i ons i s s ues atthe cl as s cer ti fi cat i on s t age, r eas oni ng thats uch an i nqui ryveer s i m perm i s s i bl yi nt o w hether the n am ed p l ai nti ffs and the clas s can prevail on theircl ai m s. 13a plai nti ff’s cl ai m are i rre lev ant for the p urposes of a c l ass a c t i o n mo t i o n , i ti s o f

n o mo me n tth a ts o me o f th e c l a s s ’ s c l a i ms m ayb e ti m e b arred as d ef en d an ts assert. ”). 45 H ow ever , ourC our t an d otherci r cui tcourt s have s i nce re jec ted th e p ro p o sitio n th a t E is en cat egor i cal l y pr ohi bi t s the eval uat i on of the mer i t s of cl as s cl ai m s at the cert i fi cat i on s t age. I n H ydr ogen Perox i de , w e i nt erpr et ed E is en to m ea n onl ythat a mer i t s i nqui r yi s pr ecl ud ed at the cl as s cert i fi cat i on s t age w h e re it “ is n o t n e c e s s a ry to d e te rm in e a R u le 2 3 re q u ir e m e n t.” 552 F. 3d at317. I ndeed, as the S upr eme C our tr ecogni zed a few y ear s aft eri tdeci ded E is en , [e] val uat i on of m anyof the ques t i ons ent er i ng in to d e ter m in a tio n o f

c las s a c tio n q u e stio n s is i nti m at el y i nv olved w i th the m eri t s of t he clai m s. T he typi cal i tyof the r epr es ent at i ve’ s cl ai m s or defe ns es , the adequac yof the r epr es ent at i ve, and the pr es ence of comm on ques t i ons of l aw orfac t are obv i ou s exam ples

. C oopers & Lybrand v. Li ves ay , 437 U
. S. 463, 469 n. 12 ( 1978) (i n terna l qu o tat ion m ark s an d c ita tio n o m itted). T h u s, “[ i] n rev iew ing a m o ti o n fo r class c erti fica ti o n , a p reli m inaryinq u iry i nt o the mer i t s i s s om et i m es nece s s aryt o det erm i ne w hetherthe a lle g e d c la im s c a n b e p ro p e r l y re s o lv e d a s a c la s s a c tio n .” N ew t on v. Mer r i l lLynch, P i er ce, Fenner& Sm i th, I nc. , 259 F. 3d 1 5 4 , 1 6 8 (3 d C ir. 2 0 0 1 ); accord H ydr ogen Perox i de , 552 F. 3d46 a t 3 2 0 (“ [ B ]e c a u s e e a c h re q u ir e m e n t o f R u le 2 3 m u s t b e m e t, a di s tr i ctcourterr s as a mat t erof l aw w hen i tfai l s t o r es ol ve a genui ne l egal orfac tual d isput e r el evantt o det erm i ni ng the re q u ir e m e n ts .” ). Si tuat i ons abound w her e st atut e- of- l i m i t at i ons i s s ues over l ap w i th cert ai n of t he R ul e 23 r equi r ement s . Forexampl e, defe n dant s m aycont end thats t atut e- of- l i m i t at i ons defe ns es precl ud e a fi nd i ng of typical i tyun der R ule 23(a) , ei ther becau se the named pl ai nt i ffs ’ cl ai m s ar e unt i m el y ( and thu s n o t typi cal o f th e c la s s ), s ee, e. g. , Fr anz e v. E qui tabl e Ass ur ance , 296 F. 3d 12 50 , 12 54 (11t h C i r. 20 02 ), or becau se the p ro p osed class i n c l u d e s n u me r o u s c l a s s me mb e r s wi th u n t i me l yc l a i ms (r e n d e ri n g th e n a m e d p la in tif f s ’ t im e ly cl a im s a typ i c a l) , s ee, e. g. , D oe v. C hao , 3 0 6 F
. 3 d 1 7 0 , 1 8 4 ( 4 th C i r . 2 0 0 2 )

. R e l a t e d l y, defe ndant s m ayoppos e cl as s cert i fi cat i on on the gro u n d that c las s m e m b e rs w ith u n ti m e lyc laim s m u st re lyo n e q u itab le t ol l i ng t o s ave their c la i m s , w hi ch pr es ent s an i ndi vi dual ques t i on of l aw an d fa ctthatcoul d pr edomi nat e overcomm on q u e s tio n s u n d e r R u le 2 3 (b )( 3 ), s ee, e. g. , In re Li nerbo ard A nt i tr us tLit ig. , 305 F. 3d 145, 160–62 ( 3d C i r . 2002) , or chal l e n g e th e p r e d o mi n a n c e r e q u i r e me n ti n l i g h to f the “pr es ence of i di os yncr at i c st atut e- of- l i m i t at i ons i s s ues ” among th e la w s o f v a ri o u s s ta te s in a n a tio n w id e c la s s a c tio n , se e W a ste M gm t
. H oldi ngs , Inc

. v. Mow br ay , 20 8 F
. 3d 28 8, 29 5– 96 (1st C ir . 2 0 0 0 ). St atut e- of- l i m i t at i ons i s s ues al s o t ouch t h e ade quacy47 re q u ir e m e n t. See, e. g. , G oodm an v. Lukens St eel C o. , 777 F. 2d 1 1 3 , 1 2 4 (3 d C ir. 1 9 8 5 ) (n a m e d p lain tiff s w e re in a d e q u a te re p rese n tat ives in class a cti o n ch all en g ing d iscri m inato ry pract i ces i n the i nit i al assi gn m ent of new l yhir ed em ploy ees, beca us e “[ a] l l of the named pl ai nt i ffs

. . . w er e or i gi nal l yhi r ed out s i de the [s t atut e- of- ] l i m i t at i ons per i od, and t her efor e, none ha[d] a vi abl e compl ai ntaboutdi s cr i m i nat ion i n i ni t i al as s i gnm ent ”)

. I ndeed, the mer i t s of a s t atut e- of- l i m i t at i ons d e f e n se to th e n a m e d p lain tiff s’ c laim s m a yb e re lev a n t to e v a l u a t i n g th e i ra d e q u a c ya s c l a s s r e p r e s e n t a t i ve s i n th e s a me w a y a n y typ e o f

d e f e n s e m a yb e re le v a n t to th a t in q u ir y , i

. e. , n a m e d p lain tiff

s m a yb e in a d e q u a te r e p r e s e n tativ e s if th e ir cl ai m s ar e extr em el yw eak as co m pared t o the r est of the clas s. A s J udge Pos nerexpl ai ned, i f w hen cl as s ce r t i fi cat i on i s s oughti ti s al r eady a p p a re n t . . . th a t th e c las s re p re se n tativ e ’s c laim i s extrem el yw eak, thi s i s an i ndepende ntr eas on to d o u b t th e a d e q u a c yo f h is re p r e s e n t a tio n . . . . O n e w h o se o w n claim is a l o ser f rom the s tart k n o w s tha t he h as n o thing to g ain f rom the v ict o ry of the cl ass, and so he h as l i t t l e i ncen t i ve to ass i st o r c o o p e r a t e i n th e l i t i g a t i o n ; th e c a s e i s t hen a p u re c las s a c tio n law y e r’s su it. R o b in so n v . Sh e r if

f o f C o o k C o u n ty , 1 6 7 F .3 d 1 1 5 5 , 1 1 5 7 (7 th C i r . 1999) ( i nt ernal ci t at i ons om i t t ed)

. T hus, to the ext entthe cl ai m s of the named pl ai nt i ffs

— as compar ed w i th the r es tof the48 cl as s

— are s ubj ectt o fat al s t atut e- of- l i m i t at i ons defe ns es , that in q u irym a yb e re lev a n t to w h e th e r th e yc a n a d e q u a te ly r epr es entabs entcl as s m ember s w hos e cl ai m s do nots uffe rfr om tim e lin e s s p ro b le m s . C

f

. B eck v. Maxi m us , I

nc. , 457 F. 3d 291, 29 7 ( 3d C i r. 20 06 ) (“the chal l eng e present ed b ya d efen se u n iqu e to a class re p rese n tat ive” is th at “the rep rese n tat ive’s i nt er es tmi g h tn o tb e a l i g n e d wi th th o s e o f th e c l a s s , a n d t he r epr es ent at i ve mi ghtdevot e t i m e and e ffort t o the def ens e atthe expens e of i s s ues thatar e comm on and contr ol l i ng forthe c la s s ” ). H ow ever , the ext entt o w hi ch a di s tr i ctcourtm ay cons i derthe mer i t s of cl ai m s in rul i ng on a cl as s - cert i fi cat i on m ot i on has l i m i t s . “W hen a di s tr i ctcourt pr oper l ycons i der s an i s s ue over l appi ng the me r i t s i n the cour s e of de t erm i ni ng w hethera R ul e 23 r equi r ementi s m et , i tdoes notdo s o i n or der to pr edi ctw hi ch partyw i l l pr evai l on the mer i t s . ” H ydr ogen P er oxi de , 5 5 2 F .3 d a t 3 1 7 n .1 7 ; s ee al s o H as s i ne , 846 F. 2d at 178 ( “The abi l i tyof a na m ed pl ai nt i ff t o s ucce ed on hi s orher i ndi vi dual cl ai m s has neverbeen a pr er equi s i t e t o ce rt i fi cat i on of the cl as s . ”)

. T hu s, m erit s i nqui ryi s notperm i s s i bl e “w hen [the] m er i t s i s s ue i s unr el at ed t o a R ul e 23 r equi r ement
. ” In re I ni t i alP ub. O

f f er i ng Sec. Li t ig. , 4 7 1 F
. 3 d 2 4 , 4 1 (2d C ir

. 2 0 0 6 ); see al s o V al lar i o v. V

andehey , 5 5 4 F
. 3 d 1 2 5 9 , 1 2 6 6 (10 th C ir

. 2009) ( the mer i t s of the cl as s cl ai m s “may nots erve as the foc al p o i n to f [ th e ] c l a s s c e r t i f

i c a t i o n a n a l ys i s ” )

. S t a t e d a n o th e rw a y, i trem ai ns t rue that “[i ]n det erm i ning t he p ro p rie ty of a c l ass a c tio n , the q u e stio n is not w hetherthe plai nt i f f orplai nt i f f s have49 s tat ed a caus e of

act i on . . . b u t ra th e r w h e th e r th e re q u ire m e n ts o f Rul e 2 3 a r e me t
. ” E is en , 417 U
. S. at178 ( emphasi s added) (i n terna l qu o tat ion m ark s an d cit ati o n o m itted). I n the cont ext of t hi s pr ece dent , w e ca nnotagr ee w i th the O bj ect or s thatthe D i s tr i ctC our tw as cat ego ri cal l ypr ohi bi t ed fr om eval uat i ng t he mer i t s of def endant s ’ s t atut e- of- l i m i t at i ons defe nses t o p otent i al T ILA / H O E P A cl ai m s i n rul i ng on cl ass cert i fi cat i on. W e m us t det erm i ne, how ever , w hether the D i s tr i ct C o u rt ’s an aly sis of

the m erit s o f th o se d ef en se s w as n ec essa ry t o ma k e fi ndi ngs on R ul e 23 r equi r ement s

— s peci fi cal l yher e the adequa cy - of- r epr es ent at i on r equi r ement s under R ul es 23( a) ( 4) a n d 2 3 (g ). 3
. T h e D istric t C o u rt’s A n a ly sis A s n o ted , the D istric t C o u rt in terp re ted o u r d e c is io n in C o m m u n it

y B a n k I as i ns truct i ng i tt o eva luate the vi abi l i tyof pot ent i al T I L A / H O E PA cl as s cl ai m s befor e eva l uat i ng the a d e q u a c yo f th e n a m e d p la in tif f s a n d th e irc o u n s e l. C om pa re 418 F
. 3d at306 ( “I f the C our tdet erm i nes thatthe TILA and H O E PA cl ai m s [of c l ass m em b ers ] ar e vi abl e, ther e maybe seriou s q u esti o n s w h ethe r th e n am ed p lai n tif f s ’ in terests are s uffi ci ent l yal i gned w i th thos e of a bs entcl as s m em ber s as r equi r ed byR ul e 2 3 (a)

. ”)

. T he D i s tr i ctC our t ’ s r eas oni ng a p p e a rs to b e th a t, if

th e se c laim s c o u ld n o t su rv iv e a R u le 12( b) ( 6) m ot i on t o di s m i s s ( and thus w er e notvi abl e) , nei ther the named pl ai nt i ffs northei rco u n s el w er e i nadequa t e for50 f a i l i n g t o b r i n g th e m.

a. T he D i s tr i ctC our t ’ s R el at i on- B ack A n a ly sis T h o u g h th e D istric t C o u rt p u rp o rt e d to a p p ro a c h th is q u e st i on usi ng a R ule 12(b)( 6) st and ard, i t s anal y si s actually d ea lt w ith R u le 15 (c), w h ich g o v ern s the circu m stan ce s w h ere an amended pl eadi ng “r el at es b ac k to the dat e of the or i gi nal p lea d in g .” F e d . R . C iv . P . 1 5 (c ). T h e C o u rt f o c u se d o n R u le 15( c) ( 1) ( C ) , w hi ch governs the ci r cumst ance s in w hi ch an amended pl eadi ng that“cha nges the party or the nami ng of the p a rtya g a in st w h o m a c laim is a ss e rte d ” re late s b a c k to th e d a te of the i ni t i al pl eadi ng. Fed. R
. C i v. P. 15(c)(1)( C )

. Such an amended pl eadi ng onl yr el at es back i f ( 1) i t“as s ert s a cl ai m or defe ns e that ar os e out of the conduct , tr ans act i on, oroccurr ence s etout

— oratt empt ed t o be s etout

— i n the or i gi nal pl ea d ing” ; and ( 2 ) th e “ p a r ty t o b e b r o u g h t i n b y a me n d me n t
. . . knew or s houl d have know n thatthe ac t i on w oul d have be en br ought ag ains t i t, b u t fo r a m ist ak e c o n ce rnin g the p rop er p arty ’s i dent i ty . ” I

d. T he C our tappr oache d the r el ati on- back que s t i on— i

. e. , wh e th e ra n a me nd e d p l e a d i n g a s s e r t i n g TI LA/ HOEP A c l a i ms c o u ld re late b a c k to a n ye a rlier c o m p lain t— n o t b yre f e re n c e to a hypothet i cal amended co m p la i ntthatthe exis t i ng named pl ai nt i ffs coul d fi l e, but by r efe r ence t o an amended compl ai nt fi l ed byabs entm ember s of the cl as s . I n part i cul ar , the C o u rtT he fi rs t groun d on w hich the D i stri ct C ou rt relied in 14 c on c l ud i ng tha tno c l ass me mberha d a t i mel yTI LA / H O EPA cl ai m w as i t s i nt erpr et at i on of our de ci s i on i n C om m uni t y Bank I as di r ect i ng i tt o “foc us on w hetherT I L A / H O E PA damage cl ai m s w er e t i m el y and thus

. . . vi abl e as of the N ovember10, 2003 fi l i ng dat e” of the C ons ol i dat ed A m ended Com pl ai nt
. T he C our temphasi zed thati n C om m uni t y Ba nk I, ourC our thad not ed— i n the cont extof expl ai ni ng w hy a s ubs t ant i al gr oup of c l a s s membe r s a pp e a r e d t o h a ve t i mel yTI LA / H O EPA cl ai m s

— that“[t ] he age of the named pl ai nt i ffs ’ l oans w hen the rel evan tcom

plai nts w er e fi l ed r anged f r om twen ty - e i g h tmont hs (i n th e c a se o f

[ n a m e d p lain tiff

T h o m a s] M a th is) to f

if ty -six m onths ( i n the ca s e of [named pl ai nt i ff R uth] D avi s )

. ” 418 F
. 3d at30 6– 07 (em ph asi s added ). T he D i stri ct C ou rt no t ed thatthese t i m e s pans corr es ponded t o the N ovember2003 fi l i ng of the C o n so lid a ted A m e n d e d C o m p lain t; i

. e. , D avi s ’ s l oan cl os ed on Fe b rua r y22, 1999 ( 56 m onths befor e the N ovember2003 C ons ol i da t e dAm e n d e dComp l a i n t ) , a nd M athi s ’ s l oan cl os ed on J une 7, 2001 ( 28 m onths befor e the C ons ol i dat ed A m end ed C om p lai n t)

. T he D i s tr i ctC our tbel i eved thatourC our tw as “ful l y aw ar e of t he i m por t ance of thi s i s s ue, ” and s pecul at ed that had w e “i nt ended the s t atut e of l i m i t at i ons anal y s i s t o focus on a n y o f th e e a rl ie r f

ile d c o m p la in ts [ ,] [ w e ] w o u ld h a v e s a id s o .” U nfor tunat el y , i t appea r s thata mi s pl ace d r ecor d ci t at i on

51 focus ed on the compl ai nt( and the pr opos ed s econd a m en ded c o n so lid a ted c o m p lai n t) f iled b yC o u n se l f

o r th e O b

jec to rs in the H obs on a c tio n . T h e C o u rt c o n c lu d e d th a t th o se c o m p lain ts coul d no t p o ssi bl yr el at e bac k t o anycompl ai nti n the cons ol i dat ed Ke ssl er a c tio n fo r se v e ra l re a sons, 14i n ouropi ni on i n C o m m u n it y B a n k I led th e D istri ct C o u rt astray
. In th e p o rt ion o f o u r o p inion to w h ich th e D istri ct C o u rt ref er re d , w e c it ed to an O ctob er 2 0 0 3 “A m en d ed S u m m ary C hartof the N amed Plai nt i ffs ’ R ecove r abl e D amages U nder R E SPA , ” fi l ed as an exhi bi tt o the O bject or s ’ “N ot i ce of O bj ect i ons ” t o t he cl as s s ett l ement
. T hi s charts etoutthe age of eac h nam ed p la i nt i ff’ s l oan as of the nexts chedul ed l oan p a ym e n t— i

. e. , att he end of O ct ober2003— appar ent l yforthe purpos e of cal cul at i ng damages

. U ns urpr i s i ngl y , the t i m e s pan betw een the dat e thatM athi s ’ s and D avi s ’ s l oans cl os ed and the fi l i ng of t hi s chart ( the end of O ct ober2003) w as es s ent i al l ythe s ame a s the t i m e s pan betw een the dat es thos e l oans cl os ed and the fi l i ng dat e o f t he C ons ol i dat ed A m ended Com pl ai nt (N o v e m b e r 1 0 , 2 0 0 3 ). As i d e f r o m th i s mi s s t a t e me n ti n o u rp r i o ro p i n i o n , we s truggl e t o s ee how t he D i s tr i ct C our tcoul d have “ fai r l yr ead” C o m m u n it

y B a n k I as di rect i ng i tt o ev al ua t e t he ti m el i ness ques t i on fr om the dat e of the fi l i ng of the C ons ol i dat ed A m ended Com pl ai nt
. O urr efe r ence s t o the “r el evant compl ai nt s ” thr oug h o utthatopi ni on w er e t o the D avis and Ulr i ch compl ai nt s ; as not ed, the Sett l i ng Par t i es us ed thes e dat es to d istin g u ish b e tw e e n c las s m e m b e rs w ith tim e lya n d u n tim e ly R E S P A c la im s . S e e , e. g. , 4 1 8 F .3 d a t 3 1 7 n .3 3 (n o tin g , in connec t i on w i th the cl as s m ember s ’ R E SPA cl ai m s , that“[t ] he rel evan tcom plai nt i s D avis forthe C B N V borr ow er s and Ulr i ch forthe G B N T borr ow er s ”)

. I ndeed, ourdeci s i on i n C o m m u n ity B a n k I m a k e s n o se n se if w e in ten d e d th e D istric t C o u rt to a s s e s s the t i mel i ne s s of c l a s s membe r s ’ po t e nt i a l TI LA / H O EPA cl ai m s as of the dat e the C ons ol i dat ed A m ended Com pl ai ntw as 52fi l ed. A s w e not ed i n C om m uni t y Bank I, i n M a r c h 200 2 RFC ann ou nced “i tw as no long er w i l l i ng t o p urchase high i nter est m or t gage l oans l i ke the ones s ol d byShum w ay . ” I d. at 28 4. T hus , the l at es ta cl as s m em b er ’ s l oan coul d have c l os ed w as M a rc h 2 0 0 2 . If

s o , no c las s m e m b e r c o u ld h a v e a tim e ly T I L A / H O E PA cl ai m , as the N ovembe r 2 0 03 C ons ol i dat ed A m ended C om pl ai nt w as fi l ed more than one y earaft erM ar ch 2 0 0 2
. 53 in c lu d in g th a t: (1 ) th e yn a m e d n e w d e f e n d a n ts in a d d iti o n to C N B V , G N B T , and R FC , and thus coul d notr el at e bac k under R u le 1 5 (c )(1 )(C ) (b e c a u se th e n a m e d p lain tiff s h a d n o t f

a iled to s ue thos e d ef

en d an t s as a r es ul tof any“mi s t ake” ) ; and ( 2) no compl ai nti n the H

obs on act i on coul d r el at e bac k t o the D avis or Ulr i ch compl ai n ts i n anyevent b e c a u se “ R u le 1 5 (c ), b yits t erm s , onl yappl i es t o amended pl eadi ngs i n the s ame act i on as the or i gi nal , t i m el ypl eadi ng, ” B ai l ey v. N

. I nd. P ubl i c Ser v. C o. , 9 1 0 F
. 2 d 4 0 6 , 4 1 3 (7th C ir

. 1 9 9 0 ). T hi s appr oach appea r s t o as s um e that the r eas ons w hythe e x i s t i n g c l a s s me mb e r s c h o s e n o t t o p l e a d TI LA/ HOEP A c l a i ms in th e ir in iti a l co m p lain ts, a n d late r re f u s e d to a m e n d th e ir co m p lai n ts to assert tho se claim s, w ere irrelev an t. T h e C o u rt a p p ro a c h e d th e a d e q u a c yq u e stio n f ro m a p e rsp e c ti v e th a t in eff ect as ked w hether , as s um i ng the exi s t i ng named p lai nt i ffs w ere i nad equ a te r e p re se n tativ e s f o r f a ili n g to b rin g th o se c laim s, that fai l ure cou l d b e rem edied byanyotherm em ber of the cl ass. A n sw e rin g th a t q u e stio n in th e n e g a tiv e , the C o u rt’s a n a ly sis54 red u ce s to th e co n clus ion that the e x ist ing n am ed p lai n ti ff s are m a d e a d e q u a te b e c a u se th e re is n o re m e d y f o r th e ir in a d e q u a te re p re s e n ta tio n . T he Sett l i ng Par t i es advanc e a s i m i l arar gume n tb e f or e us o n a p p e a l : th e yc o n t e n d th a tth e o n l ywa yTI LA/ HOEP A c l a i ms coul d be as s ert ed in this l i t i gat i on i s i f “Cl as s C ouns el orthe O bj ect or s . . . s [ought ] l eave fr om the di s tr i ctcourtt o add a new named pl ai nt i ff w hos e TILA / H O E PA cl ai m s had n o t e x p ir e d .” (S ett li n g P arti es’ B r. at 7 9 (em p h asis in ori g inal). ) M o re o v er, b e c a u s e th e e x istin g n a m e d p lain tiff s o b v io u slyd id n o t f

a il t o n a m e a n yo th e r c las s m e m b e r a s a n a m e d p lain tiff a s th e re su lt o f a “ mi s t a k e c o n c e r n i n g th e p r o p e rp a r ty ’ s i d e n t i ty , ” F e d

. R. C i v. P. 15( c) ( 1) ( C ) , the Sett l i ng Par t i es cont end t hat an amended pl e a di ng a dd i ng a ne w na med pl a i nt i ff t o a s s e r tTI LA / H O EPA cl ai m s coul d notpos s i bl yr el at e back to anycompl ai nti n the c o n s ol i dat ed Kessler ac ti o n . In su m , the S ett li n g P arti es c o n tend th a t ev e ryc las s m e m b e r’s p o ten tial T IL A /H O E P A c laim is f a ta lly tim e -b a rr e d

. W e nee d notd ef

init i vel yr es ol ve her e thi s R ul e 15( c) q u e s tio n . A s w e e x p la in f u rt h e r b e l o w , s ee i nf

r a Par tI I I
. A
. 4, th e D istric t C o u rt— b ya p p ro a c h in g th e a d e q u a c yre q u ire m e n ts fr om t hi s per s pect i ve— di d notcons i derthe s er i ous r emai ni ng q u e stio n s re g a rd in g w h e th e r (a ) th e n a m e d p lain tiff s’ in ter e sts are al i gn ed w i th those of the absent cl ass m em bers, and (b) cl ass couns el has “vi gor ous l y pr os ecut ed t he act i on” on behal f of t he c la s s . G eneral Motors , 55 F. 3d at 801. H ow ever , beca us e the55 P a rties h a v e d e v o ted so m u c h o f th e ir a rg u m e n ts to th e R u le 1 5 ( c ) i s s u e ( b o th b e f

o r e u s a n d b e f

o r e th e Di s tr i c tCo u r t ) , we th in k it ap p ro p ria te to tak e a d e to u r to e x p lain o u r se rio u s d o u b ts re g a rd in g th e S e ttlin g P a rt ie s ’ a rg u m e n t. R ul e 15( c) ( 1) ( C ) does notexpr es s l y r efe r t o the addi t i on of a new pl ai nt i ff; i tfac i al l yappl i es onl yt o an amendm entthat

“ c h a n g e s th e p a rtyo r th e n a m in g o f th e p a rtya g a i n s twh o m a clai m is as s er t ed .” F e d . R . C iv . P . 1 5 (c )(1 )(C ) (e m p h a sis add ed). H ow eve r, o u r C ou rt(and other court s) hav e al so a p p l i e d i t s re q u ir e m e n ts to th e a d d itio n o f n e w p la in tif

f s . See N e lso n v . A lleg h e ny C o u n ty , 6 0 F
. 3 d 1 0 1 0 , 1 0 1 4 n . 7 (3d C ir

. 1 9 9 5 ); s ee al

s o A dvi s oryC om m it t ee N ot es on the 1996 A m endment s t o Fed. R
. C i v. P. 15 ( “The relati o n back of a m e n d m e n ts c h a n g in g p lain tiff s is n o t ex p re ss lytre a ted in r evi s ed rul e 15( c) s i nce the pr obl em i s gener al l yeas i er [than that of amendm ent s changing d efe ndant s ]
. A gai n the chi ef cons i dera ti o n of pol i cyi s thatof the s t atut e of l i m i t at i ons , and th e a tti tu d e tak e n in

. . . R u le 1 5 (c ) to w a rd c h a n g e o f d e f e n d a n ts ext ends byanal ogyt o amendm ent s changi ng pl ai nt i ffs

. ”)

. T he S e ttl in g P a rties c o n ten d th a t N el s on i s di s pos i t i ve her e, and w oul d baranynew - named pl ai nt i ff i n thes e act i ons fr om fi l i ng an amended pl ea d ing thatcoul d r el at e bac k t o an ea r l i er - fi l ed c o m p la in t. W e d is a g re e . I n N el s on , ant i

- abort i o n p rot es t or s fi l ed a c l as s act i on agai ns tt he C i tyof P it tsbur gh aft ertheyw er e arr es t ed for p ro te s tin g o n th e g ro u n d s o f a p ri v a te c lin ic

. Id

. at1011. A ft erAs i d e f r o m N el s on , the ot her cas es ci t ed bythe Sett l i ng 15 Par t i es i n s uppor tof thi s ar gum entar e off p o int, as none i nvol ve d a n a me n d e d p l e a d i n g i n a c l a s s a c t i o n th a ts o u g ht s o le ly to s u b s titu te a n e w n a m e d p la in tif f

. See Young v. Lepone , 305 F. 3d 1, 16 –17 ( 1s tC i r . 2002) ( hol di ng thatamended pl eadi ng nami ng new pl ai nt i ffs i n a non- clas s act i on coul d not 56 the D i s tr i ctC our tdeni ed cl as s cert i fi cat i on, the named pl ai nt i ffs f il e d a n a m e n d e d c o m p la in t a s s e rt in g in d iv id u a l c la im s . I d. A f te r tw o m o re y e a rs p a ss e d , the p lain tiff s f iled a f o u rth a m e n d e d c o m p la in t a d d in g tw o n e w p la in tif f s . I d. at1011–12. W e af fi r m ed the D i s tr i ctC our t ’ s di s m i s s al of thes e new pl ai nt i ffs ’ cl ai m s as t i m e- barr ed: though i tw as undi s put ed that th e sta tu te o f

lim itatio n s w a s to lled f

o r th e se in d iv id u a ls (a s w e ll as the e nti re cl ass) un t i l the D i stri ctC ou rtden i ed clas s cert i fi cat i on, theyhad w ai ted an a ddi t i onal tw o y ear s t o add t h e ms e l v e s a s n a me d p l a i n t i f f s i n th e r e ma i n i n g i n d i v i dual ac t i on , and cou l d n ot s at i sfyR ule 15(a) (1) (C )’ s r equ i rem ents
. I d. a t 1 0 1 3

– 1 5
. T h e tw o p lain tiffs w h o se c laim s w e re d ism iss e d in N el s on w er e “ne w part i es ” bec aus e, aft ercl as s cert i fi cat i on had been deni ed , they w ai t ed t oo l ong t o s eek t o j oi n the act i on th ro u g h f ili n g a n a m e n d e d c o m p lain t. B y c o n tra st, it is n o t at a ll cl ear that an abs entcl as s m emberi n ourcas e— as s um i ng he or s he w er e adde d as a named pl ai nt i ff t o fi l e an a m ended pl eadi ng a s s e r t i n g T IL A /H O E P A c la im s

— w o u ld c o n s titu te a “ n e w p a r ty” fo r pu rpo ses o f R u le 15 (c). 15relate b ac k u n d er R u le 15 (c)); I n r e B aus ch & Lom b , Inc

. S ec. Li t ig. , 941 F. Supp. 1352, 1363–65 ( W
. D
. N
. Y
. 1996) ( hol di ng th a t am e n d e d p lea d in g in se c u rities c las s a c tio n th a t s o u g h t to nam e add i t i on al plai nti ffs an d d ef end an t s coul d notr el at e bac k u n d er R u le 15 (c)). 57 A s the Supr eme C our thas expl ai ned, abs ent m ember s of a cl as s

— atl eas ti n rel at i on t o an appl i cabl e s t atut e- ofl i m i t at i ons per i od— ar e es s ent i al l y“part i es ” t o the cl as s act i on w h ile a c e rt if

ic a tio n d e c is io n is p e n d in g . See Am

. P i pe & C ons tr . C o. v. Utah , 414 U
. S. 538, 550 ( 1974) ( w hen a put at i ve cl ass acti on i s fil ed, “t he clai m ed m em bers of t he clas s s t[ and] a s p a rtie s to th e su it unt i l and unl es s they r ece i ve[ ] no t i ce there o f a n d ch o [o ]se n o t t o co n ti n u e” (em p h asis ad d ed )). H ow ever, un der the S et t l i ng P art i es’ theo ry , an am end ed clas s c o m p lain t th a t ad d s a n e w n a m e d p lain tiff c o u ld n e v e r re late back t o t he i ni t i al compl ai nt

— even w her e the s ubs t i tut i on w as nece s s arybeca us e the e xi s t i ng named pl ai nt i ff ha d di ed orno l o n g er h ad st andi ng t o pur s ue cl ai m s on behal f of the cl as s

— beca us e the fa i l ur e t o name thatpartyas a pl ai nt i ff i n the i ni t i al compl ai ntw as notthe re s ul t of a “mi s t ake conce rni ng the pr operparty ’s id en t i ty . ” Fed. R
. C i v. P. 15( c) ( 1) ( C )

. A s our Seven th C ir cu itco ll ea g u es h av e e x p lai n ed , su ch a re su ltfa il s the purpos e of the cl as s act i on devi ce: R e lati on back t o ad d n am ed p l ai nti ffs i n a clas s act i on s ui ti s of par t i cul ar i m por t ance beca us e of the i nter est s of the unn am ed cl ass m e m bers.In d e e d , c las s co u n se l c o n c e d e d a s m u c h in th e ir 16 P ro p o se d F in d in g s o f

F a c t an d C o n c lu sio n s o f L a w su b m itt e d to the D i s tr i ctC our ti n 2003: A nycl ai m , i ncl udi ng thos e ac tua l l yas s ert ed by 58 Suppose M r . X fi l es a cl as s act i on and af t erthe s t atut e of l i m i t at i ons has run the def endants ett l es w i th X

. I f a na m ed pl ai nt i ff cannotbe s ubs t i tut ed for X w i th r el at i on back t o the dat e of the fi l i ng of the original compl ai nt , the cl as s w i l l be barr ed fr om r el i ef. P hi l l i ps v. For d Mot orC o. , 4 3 5 F
. 3 d 7 8 5 , 7 8 8 (7th C ir

. 2 0 0 6 ). I n thi s cont ext , the bett erconcl us i on m aybe thatan amended compl ai ntadd i ng a cl as s m emberas a new named pl ai nt i ff ne ed onl ys at i s fyR ul e 15( c) ( 1) ( B ) t o r el at e bac k t o an earl i er com plai nt. U nd er that s ub sect i on , the p l ai nti ff m ust de mons tr a t e on l ytha thi s orhe rTI LA / H O EPA c l a i ms “ a rose outof the conduc t , tr ans act i on, oroccurr ence s etout
. . . i n the o rig in a l p le a d in g .” F e d . R . C iv . P . 1 5 (c )(1 )(B ). M o re o v e r, it s tr i ke s us a s s tr a i gh t fo rw a r d tha tthe h yp o th e t i c a l TI LA / H O EPA c l a i ms a s s e r t e d b yth e Obj e c t o r s a r o s e o u to f th e s a me “tr ans act i on”— i

. e. , the al l e g e d l yfr audul entdi s cl os ur es ( and the om i t t ed mat er i al di s cl os ur es ) m ade i n conne ct i on w i th the cl osi ng of the cl ass m em bers’ l oa n s— as the n am ed p l ai nti ffs’ R E S P A cl ai m s. 16pl ai nt i ffs an d the al t ernat i ve cl ai m s thatthe o b jec to rs a lleg e sh o u ld h a v e b e e n a ss e rte d , w o u ld der i ve fr om the s ame factual pr edi cat e: that pl ai nt i ffs w er e char ged exces s i ve ori gi nat i on fee s and exc es s i ve fe es fort i t l e s ervi ces i n connec t i on w i th thei r s econ d m ort gag e l oan s.

59 Fi nall y , even a s s um i ng an amended pl eadi ng addi ng a cl as s m emberas a new named pl ai nt i ff c oul d not r el at e bac k underR ul e 15( c) , the “c l as s act i on t ol l i ng” doctr i ne— over w hi ch the O bj ect or s have s pi l l ed a cons i der abl e amount of i nk b e f o re o u r C o u rt a n d th e D is tr ic t C o u rt

— m a yc o m e in to p l a y. I n A m er i can Pi

pe & C ons tr uct i on C o. , the S u p re m e C o u rt h e ld that w her e cl as s cert i fi cat i on has been deni ed beca u se o f t he fai l ure t o d em on strat e t hat the clas s w as suffi ci entl ynu m erous, “the comm ence m entof the or i gi n al c lass s ui tt ol l s the runni ng of the s t atut e [of l i m i t at i ons ] for al l purpor t ed m embe rs of the cl as s w ho m ake t i m el ym ot i ons t o i nt ervene a ft er the courthas found the sui t i nappr opr i at e for cl as s act i on s t atus . ” 414 U
. S. at 553. T he C our texpl ai ned th at re fu s i ng t ol l i ng i n s uch a c irc u m sta n c e w o u ld f ru stra te th e p rin c ip a l f u n c tio n o f

a c las s s u it, beca us e then t he s ol e means byw hi ch mem ber s of the cl as s coul d as s ur e thei r part i ci pat i on i n the j udgm enti f not i ce of

the cl as s sui tdi d notr eac h60 them unt i l aft erthe runni ng of the l i m i t at i on per i od w oul d be t o fi l e ea r l i eri ndi vi dual m ot i ons t o j oi n ori nt ervene a s p art i es

— pr eci s el ythe m ul t i pl i ci tyof ac t i vi tyw hi ch R ul e 23 w as desi gn e d t o av oid i n those cases w here a cl ass a c tio n is f

o u n d “ su p e rio r to o th e r a v a ilab le m ethods forthe fa i rand ef fi ci entadj udi cat i on of th e c o n tr o v e rs y .” Id

. at551 ( quot i ng Fed. R
. C i v. P. 23( b) ( 3) )

. T h e C o u r tl at er ext ended i t s hol di ng i n A m er i can Pi pe to “a ll asse rt ed m em b ers of the cl as s , notj us tas t o i nt ervener s . ” C r ow n, C ork & Seal C o. v. P arker , 462 U
. S. 345, 350 ( 1983) ( i nt ern al q uot at i on m arks a n d c ita tio n o m itte d ). O urC our thas appl i ed Amer i c a n Pi pe toll i ng i n other ci r cumst ance s . I n H

aas v. P i t t

s bur gh N at i onalB ank , 526 F. 2d 1083 ( 3d C i r . 1975) , w e hel d thatthe “broad t ol l i ng pr i nci pl e” i n A m er i can Pi

pe ap p li ed t o the cl ai m s of a na m ed pl ai nt i ff su b sti tuted fo r th e initi al l ea d p lai n ti ff (w h o , the D istri ct C o u rt co n clud ed , lack ed stan d ing af ter th e c lass h ad b ee n ce rt ifi ed ). I d. at1097. I n McKow an Low e & C o. , Ltd. v. Jas m i ne, Ltd. , 295 F .3 d 3 8 0 (3 d C ir. 2 0 0 2 ), w e h e ld th a t A m er i can P i pe t ol l i ng appl i ed t o an i nt erveners eeki n g to become l ead pl ai nt i ff i n a cl ass act i on w here the D i stri ctC ou rthad previ ou sl yden i ed clas s cert i fi cat i on “forr eas ons unr el at ed t o the appr opr i at enes s of the s ubs t ant i ve cl ai m s forcert i fi cat i on. ” I d. a t 3 8 9 . F in a lly , in Y ang v. O dom , 392 F. 3d 97 (3d C i r . 2004) , w e ext ended our61 appl i cat i on of A m er i can Pi pe t ol l i ng i n McKow an t o the fi l i ng o f a su b se q u e n t cla ss a c tio n “ w h e re c e rtific a tio n w a s d e n ied in the p ri or suitbased o n the l ead p l ai nti ffs’ defi ci encies as cl ass r epr es ent at i ves . ” I

d. at99. I n l i ghtof t h ese p r ece dent s , the O bj ect or s ’ ar gu m en t se ems t o be that , i f the named pl ai nt i ffs w er e j udged i nadequate bas ed on thei rfai l ur e t o br i ng T I L A / H O E PA cl ai m s on behal f of the cl as s, the cl as s act i on t ol l i ng doctr i ne w oul d t ol l the s t atut e of l i m i t at i ons w i th r es pect t o t hos e cl ai m s i n ei ther(1) a subs equentact i on or( 2) the curr entact i on ( fol l ow i ng s ubs t i tut i on ori nt erventi o n of a ne w n a m e d p la in tif

f a f te r t h e c la s s is d e c e rt if

ie d ). T he Sett l i ng Par t i es count erth at cl as s act i on t ol l i ng w ou l d be un avail able t o the O bject ors— even i f c l ass cert i fi cat i on i n the cons ol i dat ed Kessler act i on w er e deni ed due t o i n a d e q u a t e r e pr e s e nt a t i on

— be c a us e no TI LA / H O EPA c l a i ms h a v e b e e n a ss e rte d in th a t ac tio n . T h e y n o te th a t so m e c o u rts h a v e s u g g e s t e d th a tc l a s s a c t i o n t o l l i n g onl ya p p l i e s t o c l a i ms thatar e i dent i cal t o thos e as s ert ed i n the i ni t i al cl as s act i on that w a s d e c e rt if

ie d

. See Rai e v. C hem i nova, I nc. , 3 3 6 F
. 3 d 1278, 1 2 8 3 (11 th C ir . 2 0 0 3 ); W es t on v. A m er iB ank , 265 F. 3d 366, 3 6 8

– 6 9 (6th C ir

. 2 0 0 1 ); S p a n n v. C om m uni t

y. B ank of

N

. V a. , N o. 03- C

- 7022, 2004 W L 691 7 8 5 , at*4–7 ( N
. D
. I l l

. M ar . 30, 2 0 0 4 ); Southw i r e C o. v. J

. P

. Mor gan C has e & C o. , No
. M DL 1 3 0 3 , 2 0 0 4 W L 4 1 4 7 9 9 , a t * 1 8 (W .D . W is. M a r. 3 , 2 0 0 4 ); s ee al s o Johns on v. Ry. E

xpr es s A gency, I

nc. , 421 U
. S. 454, 467 ( 1975) ( not i ng t hat“the t ol l i ng eff ectgi ven t o the t i m el ypr i or fi l i ngs i n Amer i c a n Pi

p e . . . d epended hea vi l yon the fa ctthatT ho ug h our C ou rt has not y et w ei gh ed i n on th is 17 deb a t e , w e ha ve a gr e e d tha t a “ s ub s t a nt i ve l y i de nt i c a l ” cl ass a c tio n f iled a f ter th e d e n ial o f

c las s c e rtific a tio n d u e to defi ci enci es of the cl as s r epr es ent at i ve qual i fi es forcl as s act i on to llin g . Y

ang , 392 F. 3d at112.

62 thos e fi l i ngs i nvol ved exa ct l ythe s ame caus e of a ct i on su b seq u en tl yasse rt ed ”). H ow ever , there i s a compet i ng l i ne of author i tyon that ques t i on. S e e C u llen v . M a rg io tta , 8 1 1 F
. 2 d 6 9 8 , 7 2 0 (2d C ir

. 17 1987) ( “N otw it h st andi ng the di ffe r ence s betw een the l egal theo ri es adva nced byplai nti ffs i n the st at e cou rtact i on and tho se advanc ed in the pr es entact i on, w e ar e per s uaded thatthe Amer i c a n P i

pe d o c tr in e h a s a p p lic a b ility to th e p re s e n t a c tio n . ”), over r ul ed on ot her gr ounds by Agency H oldi ng C or

p. v. Mal l eyD uf f & Ass ocs . , I

nc. , 4 8 3 U .S . 1 4 3 (1 9 8 7 ); To s t iv . Ci t y o f L. A. , 754 F. 2d 1485, 1489 ( 9th C i r . 1985) ( “W e fi nd no per s uas i ve a u th o rityf

o r a ru le w h ich w o u ld re q u ire th a t th e in d iv id u a l su it m u st b e id e n tica l in e v e ryre sp e c t to th e c las s s u it fo r th e sta tu te to b e tolled.”); accord, e. g. , A r i vel la v. Lucent Techs

. , I nc. , 623 F . S u p p . 2 d 1 6 4 , 1 8 0 (D . M a ss . 2 0 0 9 ); I n r e Enron C o r

p. Sec. Li t ig. , 4 6 5 F
. S u p p . 2 d 6 8 7 , 7 1 7

– 1 9 (S

. D
. T ex . 2 0 0 6 ); B ar nebey v. E

. F

. H ut t on & Co. , 715 F. Supp. 1512, 1528–29 ( M
. D
. Fl a. 1998) ; I n r e I ndep. Ser v. O r

gs . A nt i tr us tLi t ig. , N o. M D L 1021, 19 9 7 W L 16 19 40 , at*3 –6 (D

. K an. M ar. 12 , 19 97 ). T hese C our t s have r eas oned th at , w her e cl ai m s br oughti n a s ubs equent s ui ts har e a comm on fac tual and l egal nexus w i th thos e br ought63 i n the pr i orcl as s act i on, ther e i s no per su as i ve r eas on for re f u sin g to a p p lyc la ss a c tio n to lli n g , as th e d e f e n d a n t w ill alread yh av e re ce ived ad eq u ate n o ti ce o f the su b stan ti v e n ature o f th e c l a i ms a g a i n s ti t a nd l i k e l ywo u l d r e l yo n th e s a me e v id e n c e a n d w itn e s s e s in m o u n tin g a d e f e n s e . C f. C row n, C ork & Se al , 462 U
. S. at 355 ( Pow el l , J
. , concurr i ng) ( caut i oni ng that cl as s act i on t ol l i ng s houl d appl yonl yt o s ubs equent cl ai m s that “conc ern the same evi dence , m emori es , and w i tnes s es as the s ubj ectm att erof the or i gi nal class s ui t ” ( i nt ernal quot at i on m ark s an d cit ati o n o m itted)). U n d er this th eo ry , the O b jectors h a v e a stro n g a rg u m e n t th a t th e ir T I L A /H O E P A c laim s c o u ld q u ali fyfo r class a c tio n toll ing , as th o se c lai m s ap p ea r t o sh are a comm on fac tual and l egal nexus w i th the R E SPA cl ai m s the n a m e d p lain tiff

s h a v e a ss e rte d ; i

. e. , both c l ai m s ar e pr edi cat ed on defe ndant s ’ al l eged pr edat oryl endi ng s cheme and the chargi ng of f

raudulentand excessi ve closi ng fees. In th e e n d , w e n e e d n o t re so lv e in th is c a se th e d if f icu lt qu est i on s of w hether (1) a subst i tuted nam ed pl ai nti ff i n a cl ass act i on m ayfil e an a m ended pl eadi ng thatr el at es back t o the i ni t i al pl eadi ng onl yi f he ors he can sat i s fy the re qui r ement s of R u le 1 5 (c )(1 )(C ), o r (2 ) th e c las s a c tio n to lli n g d o c trin e w o u ld a p p l yi n a s u b s e q u e n tc l a s s a c t i o n

— o rt o th e c l a i ms o f a n e w, s ubs t i tut ed named pl ai nt i ff i n thats ame act i on— fol l ow i ng a det erm i nat i on thatthe named pl ai n t i ffs w er e i nadequa t e for fai l i ng t o p l e a d p o t e n t i a l l yme r i t o r i o u s c l a i ms o n b e h a l f o f the cl as s . W e s i m pl ynot e thatthe C our t ’ s appar ent c on c l us i on

— tha tthe fa i l ur e t o ass ertc ol or a bl e TI LA / H O EPAW e paus e t o acknow l edge ourow n err ori n C o m m u n ity 18 B ank I , w her e w e i ncorr ect l ys ugges t ed th at the thr ee- y ear l i mi t a t i on s pe r i od fo r c l a i ms fo r r e s c i s s i on un de r TI LA w as a s t atut e of l i m i t at i on “s ubj ectt o equi t abl e t ol l i ng. ” 418 F. 3d at 305. I n B each v. O cw en Feder alB ank , 523 U
. S. 410 ( 1998) , the S u p r e me Co u r th e l d th a tth e th r e e - y e a rp e r i o d i n 1 5 U. S
. C. § 1 6 3 5 (f )— w h ich p ro v id e s th a t th e rig h t o f re s c is s io n “ sh a ll e x p ir e ” th re e y e a rs a f

te r t h e lo a n c lo s e s , i d.

— i s nota s t atut e of lim ita tio n s , b u t a s ta tu te o f re p o s e , i

. e. , one “gove rni ng the l i fe of the under l y i ng r i ght

. ” 523 U
. S. at417. T he O bj ect or s

— pr i m ar i l y thos e fr om M ary l and, A ppeal No
. 08

- 37 91 , r e p r e s e n t e d b yth e Le g g La w Fi r m, L L C

— chal l enge the D i s tr i c tCou rt ’ s c o n cl us i on thata cl as s w i de cl ai m forr es ci s s i on coul d notbe as s ert ed i n the cons ol i dat ed Kessler a c tio n , arg u in g th a t ( 1 ) e v e n if e q u itab le to lli n g c o u ld notappl yt o s ave any cl as s m ember ’ s cl ai m , cl as s act i on t ol l i ng 64 cl ai m s coul d notbe r emedi ed thr ough anym echa ni s m , even as s um i ng t hatthe cl as s r epr es ent at i ves w er e i nadequa t e for fai l i ng t o br i ng thos e cl ai m s ( and des pi t e thei rbei ng r el eas ed as partof the s ett l ement )

— i s a path w e fi nd tr oubl i ng.

b

. T h e D istric t C o u rt’s E q u itab le T o lli n g A n a ly sis A sid e f ro m the D i stri ctC ou rt ’s R ule 15(c) analy si s, it al s o det erm i ned, w hi l e purpor t edl y appl y i ng a R ul e 1 2 (b)( 6) sta n d a rd , tha t n o c las s m e m b e r c o u ld re lyo n e q u itab le to lli n g to sav e a n o therw ise u n ti m elyT IL A /H O E P A claim

. T h e C o u rt 18cou l d; and (2 ) c on traryt o the C ou rt ’s fi nd i ng that no cl ass m emberhad as s ert ed hi s or her r es ci s s i on r i ght s , ther e i s i n fac t a s m al l gr oup of cl as s m ember s w ho t i m el ys ubm i t t ed r es ci s s i on demands t o thei r l ender s . W e need not r es ol ve that di s put e; as w e d is c u s s la te r, s ee i nf r a at 82 n. 27, w e agr ee w i th the D i s tr i ct C our tthatcl as s couns el i s not i nadequa t e for decl i ni ng t o pur s ue a c l a s s wi d e r e s c i s s i o n c l a i m. 65 r eas oned thatno cl as s m embercoul d s how any“ac t i ve m i s l eadi ng”— apartfr om the al l eged f r audul entdi s cl os ur es and o m iss i ons i n t he H U D

- 1 St at ement s pr ovi ded t o borr ow er s by the def endantbanks

— necessaryt o s uppor tthe i nvocat i on of e q u ita b le to llin g b a s e d o n a f ra u d u le n t c o n c e a lm e n t th e o ry. W e ar e conc erned thatthe D i s tr i ctC our t

— i n the cont ext o f m a k in g a d e te rm in a tio n a s to c las s c e rtific a tio n u n d e r R u le 23— concl uded, as a mat t erof la w and fi ndi ng of fa ct , thatno m e m b e r o f th e 4 4 ,0 0 0 p e rso n c las s c o u ld re lyo n e q u itab le t o l l i n g t o s a v e a n o th e rwi s e u n t i me l yTI LA/ HOEP A c l a i m. M o reover , w e have doubt s r egar di ng the C our t ’ s concl us i on even i f a Rul e 12( b) ( 6) anal y sis w er e appr opr i at e. I tr el i ed on our deci sion in O s hi verv. Levi n, F is hbei n, Sedr an & Ber m an , 38 F. 3d 1380 ( 3d C i r . 19 9 4 ), an empl oym entdi s cr i m i nat i on cas e, w her e w e aff

i r m ed the di s m i s s al ( under R ul e 12( b) ( 6) ) of an unt i m el yfai l ur e- t o- hi r e cl ai m , not ing that “now her e i n the compl ai nt[di d the pl ai nt i ff] al l ege that [ h er e m pl oy er ] m i s l ed her , act i vel yorotherw i s e, w i th r es pect to thi s cl ai m . ” I d. at 1391 n. 10. H ow ever , w e al s o vaca t ed the dism issal of the66 pl ai nt i ff’ s unt i m el y di s cr i m i nat orydi s char ge cl ai m , not i ng that the equi t abl e t ol l i ng i s s ue “w as r ai s ed i n the cont extof a mot i on to d ism iss p u r s u a n t to [ R u le] 1 2 (b )(6 ),” a n d , “[ t]h e re f o re , all thatw as r equi r ed of [ the p lai nt i ff] atthi s s t age w as thats he p le a d th e a p p lic a b ility o f th e d o c tr in e ,” w h ic h s h e h a d d o n e . I d. at1391–92 ( li st i ng the “f actual i nqui r i es [that ] m us tbe undert aken be for e a pr operr es ol ut i on of the equi t abl e t ol l i ng is s u e c a n b e re a c h e d ” ). I ndeed, ourC our t( and ours i s t erci r cui t c our t s ) have re a so n e d th a t, b e c a u se th e q u e stio n w h e th e r a p a rticu lar p a rtyis el i gi bl e for equi t abl e t ol l i ng gener al l yr equi r es cons i der at i on of e v id e n c e b e y o n d th e p lea d in g s, su c h to lli n g is no t g e n e ra lly a m e n a b l e to re s o lu tio n o n a R u le 1 2 (b )( 6 ) m o tio n . S e e , e . g. , H uynh v. C has e M

anhat tan B ank , 4 6 5 F .3 d 9 9 2 , 1 0 0 3

– 0 4 (9 th C i r . 2006) ( “G ener al l y , the appl i cabi l i tyof equi t abl e t ol l i ng d e p e n d s o n m a tters o u tsid e th e p lea d in g s, so it i s ra re ly ap p rop ri ate to g ra n t a R u le 12 (b)(6 ) m o ti o n to d ism iss ( w h ere r evi ew i s l i m i t ed t o the compl ai nt ) i f equi t abl e t ol l i ng i s at issue

. ”); R eis erv. R es i dent i alFundi ng C or p. , 380 F. 3d 1027, 10 30 (7th C i r. 20 04 ) ( rej ect i ng R F C ’s argum ent that pl ai nti ffs’ cl ai m s w er e “unt i m el yunderthe one- y ear per i ods of l i m i t at i ons cont ai ned i n both the TILA and t he R E SPA , ” and not i ng that

“ b e c a u se th e p e rio d o f

lim itatio n s is a n a f

f irm a tiv e d e f

e n se it i s ra re ly a g o o d re a s o n to d is m is s u n d e r R u le 1 2 (b )( 6 )” ). I n anyevent , w hetherthe type of f r audul entconce al m ent al l eged bythe O bj ect or s ( and, as w e di s cus s bel ow , thatas s ert edW e p e rc e iv e a n e v e n m o re f u n d a m e n tal p ro b lem w ith 19 th e a p p lica tio n o f

a R u le 1 2 (b )(6 ) sta n d a rd h e re : i

. e. , i ti s not cl earto w h atpl eadi ng the C our ts houl d have appl i ed that s ta n d a rd

. C

f. R o b in J . E f

f ro n , The P lai nt i

f f N eutr a l i t y Pri nci pl e: P lea d in gC o m

p lex L iti g a tio n in th e E ra o

f T w o m b ly and I

qbal , 51 W m . & M aryL
. R ev. 1997, 2022 ( 2010) ( “The pr ocedur al di ffe r ence s betw een a R ul e 12( b) ( 6) m ot i o n to di s m i s s and a R ul e 23 cert i fi cat i on pr ocee di ng . . . i ndi cat e thatther e w oul d be s om e pr act i cal p rob le m s i n appl y i ng the T w o m b ly / I qbal [ p l a u s i b i l i ty] s ta n d a rd in th e c l a s s c e r t i f i c a t i o n c o n t e x t
. N a m e l y, t o w hat document s w oul d the st andar d appl y ?”)

. I ndeed, even the Sett l i ng Par t i es appea r t o acknow l edge thata R ul e 12( b) ( 6) a n a lysis is h e re a b ri d g e to o f a r. See Set t l i ng Par t i es ’ B r . at49 ( “ [ T] h e who l e th ru s t o f th e Obj e c t o r s ’ c o mpl a i n t s ( t hen and n o w ) is th a t no . . . TI

LA / H O EP A clai m s w er e pl eaded i n the C o n so lid a ted A m e n d e d C o m p lain t. A R u le 1 2 m o tio n to d i s mi s s th u s woul d have be en a s pectacular l

y i nappr opr i at e w ay t o det erm i ne the vi abi l i tyof hypothes iz ed c laim s th a t had neve r been pleaded

. ” (e m p h ase s in o ri g inal)). In a d d iti o n , it a p p e a rs th a t th e D istric t C o u rt re lied o n ly o n th e b rie f

s f iled b y t h e d e f

e n d a n ts, a n d n o t cla ss c o u n se l, i n c o n n e c tio n w ith its v iab ili tyin q u iry . T h is n o d o u b t is conce r ni ng, as i t comes cl os e t o r el i evi ng the named p lai n t i ffs and cl as s couns el of thei rbur den to p rove thatthe R ul e 23 re q u ire m e n ts w e re m e t. See, e. g. , J o h n s to n v . H

B O F ilm M

g m t., 67 b yth e n a m e d p lain tiff s in c o n n e c tio n w ith th e ir u n tim e ly R E SPA cl ai m s ) can, as a mat t erof l aw , pr ovi de a s ucce s s ful b asis fo r e q u it ab le to ll ing u n d er T IL A /H O E P A w as n o t bef o re th e D istric t C o u rt. Its a n a ly sis o f th e m e rits o f

th e e q u itab le 19I nc. , 2 6 5 F
. 3 d 1 7 8 , 1 8 3 (3d C ir

. 2 0 0 1 ). W e not e that , t o the ext ent the D i s tr i ct C our ts houl d not 20 have cons i der ed the mer i t s of def endant ’ s s t atut e- of- l i m i t at i ons defe ns es i n m aki ng i t s cl as s cert i fi cat i on deci s i on, thaterr orw as c e rta in lye n c o u r a g e d b yc o u n se l f o r th e O b

jec to rs. In d e e d , it w a s th o se v e ryc o u n se l w h o u rg e d th e C o u rt to u se a R u le 12( b) ( 6) s t andar d i n asses s i ng the vi abi l i tyof thei rpr opos ed T I L A / H O E PA cl ai m s ( though the O bj ect or s c o n t e n dth e s t atut eo f-li m it ati o n s d ef

en ses s h o u ld n o t be a p art of that an aly sis)

. T h o u g h co u n sel fo r th e O b jectors n o w co m p lai n that the C o u rt ’s v iabili ty b ri ef

ing w as “a m o rph o u s an d u n stru cture d , ” th eyw ere m e m b e rs o f

th e S te e r in g C o m m itt e e th e C o u rt a ss ig n e d to es t abl i s h thatbr i efi ng s tructur e, and i n anyeventtheyhave not expl ai ned how a “pr oper l ys tructur ed mot i on t o di s m i s s or m o ti o n fo r sum m aryjud g m en t” w o u ld h av e b ee n a m o re appr opr i at e pr ocedur e on r emand. ( O bj e c t o r s ’ Br
. , N o. 08- 3621, at 38

– 3 9
. ) In thi s l i ght , the Sett l i ng Par t i es cont end thatthe O bj ect or s s houl d be es t opped fr om chal l engi ng the D i s tr i ct C our t ’ s vi abi l i tyanal y s i s , orbe dee m ed t o have w ai ved anys uch c h a l l e n g e . W e d i s a g r e e . “ W h i l e a p a rty c a n wai v e hi s or her abi l i ty t o a p p e a l a ru l i n g f o r f a i l u r e t o o b

j e c t , th e r e c an be no w ai ver. . . of the J udg e’s d u tyt o appl ythe corr ectl egal s t andar d. ” U

n ited S ta tes v . A li , 5 0 8 F
. 3 d 1 3 6 , 1 4 4 n . 9 (3d C ir

. 2007)

. Norc a n a p a r ty“ ‘ wai v e ’ th e p r o p e rs t a n d a r d o f [our 68 t ol l i ng theoryadvanc ed by the O bj ect or s w as es s ent i al l yan i nqui r yi nt o “w hi ch party[w oul d] pr evai l on the mer i t s ” of the T IL A /H O E P A c laim s th e O b jec to r s s o u g h t to a ss e rt. 20appel l at e] r evi ew . ” B ro w n v . Sm ith , 5 5 1 F .3 d 4 2 4 , 4 2 8 n .2 (6 th C ir. 2 0 0 8 ). T h is i s p a rticu lar lytru e in th e c las s a c tio n c o n tex t, w here “the dis tri ct cou rt act s as a fi du ci aryw ho m ustserve as a guar di an of the r i ght s of abs ent c l as s m ember s [. ] ” G ener al Motors , 55 F. 3d at7 8 5 ( i nt ernal quot at i on m arks and ci t at i on o m itt e d ); s ee al

s o St i r m an v. E

xxon Corp. , 280 F. 3d 5 5 4 , 5 63 n. 7 ( 5th C i r . 2002) ( r ej ect i ng ar gum entthatdefe ndanthad w ai ved cha l l enge t o class re pr es ent at i ve’ s adequa cybynot r ai s i ng i ti n the D i s tr i ctC our t , and not ing that, “[e ] ven i f [the defe ndant ] had s t i pul at ed t o cert i fi cat i on, the co u r tw as bound to c o n d u c t it s o w n th o ro u g h [ R ]u le 2 3 (a ) in q u iry ” ). T h u s, w h ile w e ce r t ai nl yagr ee thatthe O bj ect or s ar e part l yt o bl ame forthe appr oach the D i s tr i ctC our tt ook, w e ca nnotagr ee thatthe Co u r t ’ s a n a l y s i s i s th e r e b yi n s u l a t e d f r o m o u ra p p e l l a t e r e v i e w. 69 H ydr ogen Perox i de , 552 F. 3d at317 n. 17.

* * * * * I n s um , the R ul e 23 r equi r ement s “di ffe r i n k ind fr om leg a l ru lin g s u n d e r R u le 1 2 (b )(6 )” (a n d , fo r th a t m a tter, R u le 1 5 (c ))

. Sz abo v. B r i dgepor tMachs

. , I nc. , 249 F. 3d 672, 676 ( 7th C i r . 2001)

. W e conc l ude thatthe mer i t s i nqui r i es the Di s tr i c tCou r tc o n d u c t e d h e r e— i

. e. , w hethera new pl ai nt i ff c o u l d f i l e a n a me n d e d p l e a d i n g a s s e r t i n g TI LA/ HOEP A c l a i ms cons i s t entw i th R u l e 15( c) , oradequa t el ypl ead a bas i s for e q u itab le to lli n g u n d e r R u le 1 2 (b )(6 )— w e re u n n e c e ss a ryto e v a lu a te th e a d e q u a c yre q u ir e m e n t u n d e r R u le 2 3 (a )( 4 ).70 4. A dequac yof R epr es ent at i on A s d iscu ssed , w e c o n clud e tha t th e D istri c t C o u rt i ncorr ect lyeval uat ed the ade quacyof the named pl ai nt i ffs and cl as s couns el

. A dded t o that , w e cont i nue t o have c o n c e rn s— e ss e n ti a llyth e sa m e a s th o se w e id e n tifie d in C om m uni t

y Bank I

— r egar di ng w hetherthe name dp l ai nt i ffs and thei rcouns el ar e ade quat e cl as s r epr es ent at i ves . T o ai d the Co u r t o n r e ma n d , we e x p l a i n o u r c o n c e rn s ( a n d th e i n q u i r i e s we thi nk w orthw hi l e to c o n side r) be low , fo cu sing sp ec ifi ca ll yo n ( a) the apparen t i ntr a- cl as s confl i ctw i th r es pectt o the s t atut e- ofl i m i t at i ons pr obl em, w hi ch m ay r ai s e ques t i ons r egar di ng the nam ed p l ai nti ffs’ adequ acyun der R ule 23(a )(4 ); and (b) cl ass co u n sel’s j u sti fica ti o n s fo r th e d ec isio n n o t t o asse rt T ILA / H O E P A cl ai m s on b eh a lf o f t he clas s, w hich m ayrai se q u e s tio n s re g a rd in g c o u n s e l’ s a d e q u a c yu n d e r R u le 2 3 (g ).

a. T he C l as s R epr es ent at i ves A s n o ted , the a d e q u a c y r e q u ire m e n t is d e sig n e d “ to unco v erconfl i ct s of i nt er es tbetw een na m ed part i es and the cl as s they s eek t o r epr es ent
. ” A m chem , 521 U
. S. at625. H er e, ther e i s an obvi ous and funda m ent al i ntr a- cl as s co n fli ctof i nt er es t( the s ame w e i dent i fi ed i n C om m uni t y Bank I

) : the named pl ai nt i ffs ’ cl ai m s

— w hetherunderR E SPA , T I L A , or H O E PA

— ar e unt i m el y , and theym us t r el y on equi t abl e t ol l i ng to sa v e th e m . N o tw ith sta n d in g th a t su b sta n tia l h u rd le to th e ir cl ai m s , theys eek t o r epr ese nta s i zea bl e s ubgr oup of theT h e n a me d p l a i n t i f f s wh o r e c e i v e d l o a n s f

r o m C BN V, 21 an d the d ates the irloan s clo sed , are : R u th D av is ( F eb

. 2 2 , 1 9 9 9 ), Phi l l i p and J eani ne K os s l er ( J ul y 28, 1998) , W i l l i am and E l l en S ab o (O ct. 1 5 , 1 9 9 9 ), Jo h n an d R eb ec ca P icard (N o v . 3 0 , 1 9 9 9 ), B r i an and Car l a K es s l er( A pr . 30, 1 9 99) , and N or a H
. M i l l er (A p r. 3 0 , 1 9 9 9 ). Th e n a me d p l a i n t i ffs who r e c e i v e d l o a n s f r o m G NB T, and the dat es thei rl oans cl os ed, ar e: R us s el l and K athl een U l r i ch ( A ug. 8, 2000) , T hom as M athi s ( J une 7, 2001) , St ephen an d A m y H an ey (M ay 2 3 , 2 0 0 1 ), P atri ce P o rco (S ep t. 9 , 2 0 0 0 ), R obert and R ebec ca C l ark ( M ar . 1, 2001) , and Edw ar d K rus ka (M ay5 , 2 0 0 1 ). 71 c la s s

— a p p ro x im a te ly 1 4 ,0 0 0 p e rs o n s

— w ith tim e ly cl a im s . C f. McA n a n ey v. A s t or i a F i n. C or p. , N o . 0 4

- C V

- 1 1 0 1 , 2 0 0 7 WL 2702348, at *12 ( E
. D
. N
. Y
. Sept
. 12, 2007) ( hol di ng thatnamed pl ai nt i ffs i n a T I L A cl as s act i on w er e i nadequa t e r epr es ent at i ves b e c a u s e th e irc la im s w e re tim e -b a rr e d ). A s n o ted, a cl ai m fordamages underT I L A and H O E P A

—

ju s t lik e a c la i m f

o r d a m a g e s u n d e r R E S P A , s ee 12 U
. S. C
. § 2614— i s s ubj ect t o a one- y ear l i m i t at i ons per i od that b eg ins to ru n fro m the d ate the loan clos ed , 1 5 U
. S
. C
. § 1 6 4 0 (e). T her e ar e 19 named pl ai nt i ffs i n the cons ol i dat ed cl as s act i ons befor e us . E ach na m ed pl ai n ti ff’ s l oan cl os ed more than one y earbefor e ei therthe D avis act i on ( w i th r es pect t o the Pl ai nt i ffs w ho r ece i ved thei rl oans fr om C B N V ) orthe Ulr i ch a c tio n (w ith r e s p e c tt o th e Pl a i n t i f

f s who r e c e i v e d th e i rl o a n s f r o m G NB T) w as fi l ed. ( A s not ed, the Set t l i ng Par t i es us ed the fi l i ng dat es

2172 o f th e se a c ti o n s to d istin g u ish b e tw e e n c las s m e m b e rs w ith t i m el yR E SP A cl ai m s , and thos e w ho w oul d have t o r el yon equi t abl e t o ll ing, forpurpos es of di s tr i but i ng the I ni t i al and M odi fi ed Sett l ement s . ) A ccor di ngl y , notonly is everynamed pl a i nt i ff’ s po t e nt i a l c l a i m forda mage s un der TI LA / H O EPA t i m e- barr ed, the R E SPA cl aim s the named pl ai nt i ffs di d br i ng a re a lso tim e -b a rr e d , an d th e ym u st re lyo n e q u itab le to lli n g to pr evai l o n eit hert ype of c l ai m . B ycontr as t , a s i gni fi cant per cent age of

cl as s m ember s’ l oans cl os ed w i thi n one y earof the D avis o r Ulri ch compl ai nt , and theyneed notr el yon e q u ita b le to llin g

— a d o c tr in e th a t c o u rt s a p p ro a c h “ w a ri ly,” Seit zi ng er v. R ead i ngH

osp. an d Med. C tr. , 165 F. 3d 236, 240 ( 3d C i r . 1999)

— t o s ave thei rt i m el y , and thus m ore val uabl e, c la im s . C f

. O r t izv. F i br eboar d C or p. , 527 U
. S. 815, 857 ( 1999) ( c l a s s wh i c h i n c l u d e d c l a s s me mb e r s wh o s e a s b e s t o s c l a i ms ar os e bef or e and aft erthe def

endant ’ s i ns ur ance pol i cyexpi r ed shou l d h ave b een d i vided i nto subcl asses , as th o se class m ember s w hos e cl ai m s ar os e bef or e the pol i cyex p ir ed “ha d m o re v a lu a b le c la im s ” th a n th o s e w h o s e c la im s a ro s e a f te r)

. T h e ter m s o f

th e M o d if

ied S e ttl e m e n t ex e m p lifyth is c o n f l i c to f i n t e r e s t , a tl e a s twi th r e s p e c tt o th e p ot ent i al T IL A /H O E P A c la im s . See G eneral Motors , 55 F. 3d at801. T h o u g h th e M o d if

ied S e ttl e m e n t (lik e th e In iti a l S e ttl e m e n t) d istin g u ish e s b e tw e e n c las s m e m b e rs w h o se lo a n s c lo se d w ith in and out s i de of one y earbefor e the D a v is and Ulr i ch c o m p lain ts w er e fi l ed ( for purpos es of t he R E SPA cl ai m s ) , i tapport i ons the a dd i t i on a l moni e s pa i d t o r e fl e c tpo t e nt i a l TI LA / H O EPA73 damages claim s as though eve r y c las s m e m b e r is re q u ire d to e s t a b l i s h a b a s i s f

o re q u i t a b l e t o l l i n g t o b e e l i g i b l e f o rr e l i e f

. As n o ted, th at i s n o t th e c ase . A cc o rdin g ly , the D istri ct C o u rt ’s a p p a r e n t“ c o n c l u s i o n th a tth e s e t t l e m e n t

— w h i c h ( s u p p o s e d l y) m axim i zed class recovery

— sat i sfi ed the r equ i rem ent that cl ass m ember s ’ i nt er es t s not be ant agoni s t i c i gnor es the cons pi cuous evi dence of s uch an i ntr a- cl as s confl i cti n the veryt erm s of th[e] s ett l ement
. ” Id

. at800–01. T he D i s tr i ctC ourt

— havi ng det erm i ned thatno other cl as s m ember coul d as s erta t i m el yT I L A / H O E PA cl ai m under R ules 15 (c) and 12 (b) (6)

— did no t con si der this intra- cl ass confl i ct
. I t s houl d do s o on r emand. A s w e not ed i n C o m m u n ity B ank I, h o w e v e r, th is in tra -c las s c o n f lict i s b y n o m e a n s fa tal to w hetherthes e ca ses can be m ai nt ai ned as a cl as s act i on. T he mo s to b v i o u s r e me d y wou l d b e t o c r e a t e s u b c l a s s e s , a s we s u g g e s te d in o u r p ri o r o p in io n . See C om m uni t y Bank I, 4 18 F. 3 d a t 3 1 0 ( “ [ I ] f th e Di s tr i c t Cou r t wer e t o f i n d [ o n r emand] thatcl a s s c e rt i f

i cat i on i s appr opr i at e, the C our ts houl d det erm i ne w h e th e r su b -c las se s ar e n e c e ss a ry o r a p p ro p ria te . . . . ” ); see al so I n r e I ns . B r oker age Ant i tr us tLi t ig. , 5 7 9 F
. 3 d 2 4 1 , 2 7 1 (3d C ir

. 2 0 0 9 ). b. C l as s C ouns el “C our t s exami ni ng s ett l ementcl as s es have e m phas i zed the s peci al need t o as s ur e thatcl ass counse l : ( 1) pos s es s ed adequa t e expe r i ence ; ( 2) vi gor ous l ypr os ecut ed the ac t i on; and74 ( 3) act ed at arm ’ s l ength fr om the def endant

. ” G eneral Motors , 55 F. 3d at 801. W e di d notel abor at e i n C o m m u n it y B a n k I on the type of i nqui r ya di s tr i ctcourts houl d engage i n w hen a d d re ss in g c las s c o u n se l’s a d e q u a c yin lig h t o f th e d e c isio n to b rin g so m e , b u t n o t o th e r, p o ten tiallyc o lo ra b le c laim s o n b e h a lf of the cl as s , and w e nee d notdo s o defi ni t i vel yher e. For presentpu rposes, i t i s suf fi ci ent t o n ote a few gen eral pri ncipl es. F ir s t, a “ m e re d is a g re e m e n t o v e r l i t i g a t i o n s tr a te g y . . . does not , i n and of i t s el f, es t abl i s h i nadequ ac yof r epr es ent at i on. ” B r adl ey v . Mi l l i ken , 8 2 8 F .2 d 1 1 8 6 , 1 1 9 2 (6 th C ir. 1 9 8 7 ); s ee al

s o, e. g. , Un i t e d

S ta t e s v . Ci t

y o f N. Y. , 198 F. 3d 3 6 0 , 3 6 7 (2 d C ir. 1 9 9 9 ) (“ R e p re se n tatio n is n o t in a d e q u a te si m plybecau se [an att orneyden i ed ap po in t m ent as cl ass c o u n se l]

. . . h a [ s] d if

f e re n t v iew s o n th e f

a c ts, t h e a p p lic a b le l aw , or the l i kel i hood of s ucce s s of a part i cul arli ti gat i on str ateg y ”); D agget tv. C om m ’ n on G overnm entalE thi cs and E l ect i on P r act i ces , 172 F. 3d 104, 112 ( 1s tC i r . 1999) ( not i ng that“the u se o f di ffe r entar gum ent s as a mat t erof l i t i gat i on j udgm enti s noti nadequa t e r epr es ent at i on per se ”); D eBoer v

. Mel lon M

or t g. C o. , 64 F. 3d 1171, 1175 ( 8th C i r . 1995) ( “The fac tt hat[obj ect i ng cl as s m ember s ] do notappr ove of the set t l em ent t erm s does no t , of it sel f, dem on strat e th a t .
. . cl ass c o u n se l p ro v id e d in a d e q u a te r e p re se n tatio n .”). W e re it o therw ise, d isag ree m en ts ov er strat eg y“w o u ld req u ir e decer t i fi c a t i on a nyt i me a n o bj e c t i on i s r a i s e d t o a c l ass, cert ai nl ynot the st andar d envi s i oned by R ul e 23. ” Id

. at1175.T hough notaddr es s ed byth e part i es , s i m i l ari s s ues 22 ari se w here obj ect i ng cl ass m em bers chal l eng e a cl ass rep rese n tat ive’s a d eq u ac yin li g h t of the re p rese n tat ive’s d e c i s i o n n o tt o j o i n a s a d e fe nd a nt a n e n t i tya g a i n s twh o m a col or abl e cl ai m coul d be as s ert ed. I n s uch ca s es , court s have co n s i d e r e d whe th e rth e d e c i s i o n n o tt o j o i n a p a r t i c ul ar d e f e n d a n t co u ld b e c h a ra c ter ize d a s “ stra te g ic,” o r, if n o t, i s i nd i cat i ve o f antagon i st i c i nter est s bet w een the na med p l a i nti ffs, th e irc o u n s e l, a n d c e rt a in a b s e n t c la s s m e m b e rs . See, e. g. , Feder v . El e c . Data S

y s . C or p. , 4 2 9 F
. 3 d 1 2 5 , 1 3 5 (5th C ir

. 2 0 0 5 ); P aper Sys

. I

nc. v. Mi t

s ubis hiC or

p. , 1 9 3 F
. R. D. 6 0 1 , 6 1 1 ( E
. D. W is . 2 0 0 0 ); D ubi n v. Mi l l er , 1 3 2 F. R. D. 2 6 9 , 2 7 3 ( D. Col o. 1 9 9 0 ) (t hough “a c l as s pl ai nt i ff ne ed notj oi n eve r y p o ss ib le defe n d an t, p lai n ti ff

is ob li g ated to su p p lya p ersu asiv e re aso n for th e n o n -j o in d e r” (e m p h a s is in o ri g in a l) ). 75 A s R ul e 23 m akes cl ear , how ever , “the w or k couns el has don e i n i dent i fy i ng ori nves t i gat i ng pot ent i al cl ai m s i n the ac ti o n ” is an im p o rt an t fac tor w h en ev alua ti n g class c o u n sel’s a d e q u a c y . F e d . R
. C iv

. P
. 2 3 (g )(1 )(A )(i). T h o u g h w e c e rta in ly agr ee thatcl as s couns el i s noti nadequa t e s i m pl ybeca us e they have notas s ert ed eve rycl ai m thatcoul d th eor et i cal l ybe pl ed a g a in st a d e f

e n d a n t, c f

. Wal

- M a r tS t o r e s , I

n c . v . Vi s a U. S

. A. I nc. , 396 F. 3d 9 6 , 113 ( 2d C i r . 2005) , nei theri s the dec i s i on r egar di ng the cl ai m s t o as s erti n the ac t i on t ot al l ys hi el ded fr om j udi ci al s crut i ny . I n pa rt i c u l ar , w her e cl as s couns el ’ s pr offe r ed 22 re a so n s f

o r th e “ stra teg ic” d e c is io n n o t to b rin g c e rta in cl ai m s— i

. e. , o b s ta c les f a c e d b yth e c laim s, e ith e r a s to cert i fi cat i on orpr oof— al s o appl yto the cl ai m s thathave be enIn a d di t i o n , the S e tt l i n g Pa rt i e s

— d e s p i t e thei ragr eement 23 thatthe fi l i ng dat e of the D a vis c o m p lain t w o u ld b e u se d to d istin g u ish b e tw e e n C B N V b o rro w e rs w ith tim e ly a n d u n tim e ly R E S PA cl ai m s

— now di s put e bef or e us thatanyamended pl eadi ng as s ert i ng T I L A / H OE PA cl ai m s coul d r el at e bac k t o the in iti a l D avis compl ai nt
. T heycont end that , b ec ause that compl ai ntas s ert ed cl ai m s onl y on behal f of a put at i ve s t at ew i de cl as s of C B N V

- borr ow er s , anyamended compl ai ntas s ert i ng T IL A /H O E P A c laim s o n b e h a lf o f th e n a tio n w id e c las s c o u ld o n l y r e l a t e b a c k t o th e s e c o n d a me n d e d c o mpl ai nt i n D a v is ( fi l ed on J une 12, 2002) , w hi ch br oadene d the s cope t o a p u ta tiv e q u a s i- n a tio n w id e c la s s o f C B N V b o rr o w e rs . S e e C lif f v. P ayco G en. A m . C r edi t s , I nc. , 3 6 3 F .3 d 1 1 1 3 , 1 1 3 1

– 3 3 (1 1 th 76 as s ert ed, a di s tr i ctcourtm ayhave r eas on t o ques t i on w hether c las s c o u n se l h a s “ v ig o ro u sly p ro se c u ted th e a c tio n ” o n b e h a lf o f th e c la s s . G eneral Motors , 5 5 F .3 d a t 8 0 1
. I n t hatl i ght , w e bel i eve thatthe s t atut e- o f-li m i t at i ons j us t i fi cat i on fo r c l as s couns el ’ s deci s i on nott o br i ng TI LA/ HOEP A c l a i ms

— th e o n l yh u r d l e t o p l e a d i n g th o s e c l a i ms thatthe D i s tr i ctC our tcons i der ed— des erves m or e s crut i ny . For exampl e ( and as di s cus s ed prev ious l y ) , the Sett l i ng Par t i es (i nclud in g c las s c o u n se l) c o n ten d that no cl ass m ember

— i ncl udi ng the named pl ai nt i ffs

— coul d r el yon e q u itab le to lli n g to sa v e a p o ten tial T IL A /H O E P A c laim . T h is p o sitio n is s u rp risin g , as c las s c o u n se l h a s ta k e n th e o p p o site po s i t i on w i th r e s pe c tt o the na med p l a i nt i ff s ’ un t i mel yRE SPA c l a i m s . I n t hei r C ons o l i dat ed A m ended

2 3C ir

. 2004) ( hol di ng thatan amended compl ai ntexpandi ng the cl as s act i on t o as s ert a nat i onw i de cl as s di d notr el at e bac k under R u l e 1 5 ( c ) t o t h e i n i t i a l c o m p l a i n t , w h i c h a s s e r t e d o n l y a s t at ew i de cl as s )

. A s a r es ul t , the Sett l i ng Par t i es est i m at e that the “a ctual num berof borr ow er s w hos e l oans cl os ed w i thi n one y e a r o f th e f ili n g o f th e f irst c o m p lain ts a lleg in g m u lti sta te cl as s es ” i s appr oxi m at el y 8, 451 ( r atherthan 14, 000)

. ( Set t l i ng P arti es’ B r. at 74
. ) A s not ed, how ever , thi s pos i t i on, w h ich cl as s couns el ( al ong w i th defe ndant s ) have now t aken w i th r es pectt o the T I L A / H O E PA cl ai m s , di r ect l yconfl i ct s w i th the posi t i on t aken forthe R E SPA cl ai m s ( as i l l us tr at ed bythe t erm s of the I ni t i al and M odi fi ed S ett l ement s )

. T hat i s , i f C B N V borr ow er s cannot rely on the fi l i ng dat e of the D avis com plai nt t o m ake th e ir po t enti al T ILA / H O E P A cl ai m s t i m el y , neith e r m aytheydo so w i th r es pect t o the R E SPA cl ai m s thatthe named pl ai nt i ffs have as s ert ed i n t hi s l i t i gat i on. M o r e o v e r, th e re a p p e a rs to b e c o n f lictin g a u th o rity r egar di ng w hether an amended pl eadi ng as s ert i ng a nat i onw i de cl as s can r el at e bac k to an i ni t i al pl eadi ng as s ert i ng a s m al l er cl as s . T he Seventh C i r cui tC our thas concl uded, though i n the cont extof det erm i ni ng w hether r emoval underthe C l as s A ct i on Fai r nes s A ctw as appr opr i at e, thatan amended pl eadi ng expandi ng a s t at ew i de cl as s act i on t o a nat i onw i de cl as s act i on do es n o tres ulti n the “com m encem ent” of a new sui tbecau se s u c h a n a m e n d e d p le a d in g re la te s b a c k to th e f ir s t p le a d in g . See Schi l l i ngerv. U

ni on P ac. R

. R

. C o. , 4 2 5 F
. 3 d 3 3 0 , 3 3 4 (7th C ir

. 2005) ( “[T] he expa ns i on of a pr opos ed cl as s does notchange the part i es t o the l i t i gati on no r does i tadd new cl ai m s.” ); se e als o 77Schors ch v. H ew l ett
- P ackard C o. , 4 1 7 F
. 3 d 7 4 8 , 7 5 1 (7th C ir

. 2005) ( “A m endment s t o cl as s defi ni t i ons do not comm ence new s u i t s . ” )

. T h o u g h we n e e d n o tr e s o l v e t h i s q u e s t i o n h e r e , we si m ply no t e again the seem i ng l yi nco nsi st ent posi t i on s that cl ass couns el has t aken w i th r es pectt o the R E SPA cl ai m s thathave b e e n p led a n d th e T IL A /H O E P A c laim s th a t h a v e n o t. 78 C o m p lain t, th e n a m e d p lain tiff s s p e c if ica llya lleg e d f

a c ts s ugge s t i ve of

fr a ud ul e ntc on c e a l menta s t o the c l a s s ’ s RE SPA cl ai m s , i ncl udi ng thatthe def endant s conce al ed, among ot her t hi n g s , ( 1 ) th e a c tu a l r e c i p i e n to f th e o r i g i n a t i o n f

e e s c h a r g e d, a n d (2 ) “[ t]h e f

a c t th a t v irtu a llyn o se rv ice s w e re p e rf o rm e d in excha nge forthe s uppos ed ‘ t i t l e fe es ’ i m po sed upon Pl ai nt i ffs a n d th e C las s.” T h e O b

jec to rs re ly o n sim ilar a lleg a tio n s to to ll on equi tygr ounds the TILA / H O E PA cl ai m s , i ncl udi ng thatthe defe ndant s ( 1) fal s el yr epr esent ed on the H U D

- 1A Set t l ement S tate m e n ts th a t th e yw e re c h a rg in g th e b o rro w e r f o r titl e “abs tr act s ” and “exam i nat i ons , ” w hen i n r eal i tythe cha r ges w er e for“pr opertyr eport s ”; and ( 2) i nt ent i onal l yconce al ed do cum ents from bo rr ow ers that w ou l d h ave revealed t hese facts

. I n that l i ght , the S ett l i ng Par t i es ’ des cr i pt i on of the bas i s forthe O bj ect or s ’ eq u it ab le t o ll ing theo ry

— that “the b an k s sh o u ld have dis cl ose d th atthe ti t l e com pan i es [em ploy ed b ydefe nd ants ] w e re n o t p ro v id in g a n y s e r v ice s in e x c h a n g e f o r th e tit le exami nat i on fee or the al l eged m arkup of the t i t l e abs tr actfee ” ( Set t l i ng Par t i es ’ B r . at91)

— appl i es equal lyt o the namedT h o u g h we d o n o tr e s o l v e th e q u e s t i o n i n th i s c a s e , we 24 not e thatthe S ett l i ng Par t i es ’ theoryof fr audul ent c o n c e a lm e n t— i

. e. , th a tf r a u d u l e n tc o n c e a l me n tr e q u i r e s s o me f u rth e r a c t th a n th e f

a ilu re to d isc lo se in f

o rm a tio n th a t w o u ld r eve a l th e f

r a u d u l e n t n a tu r e o f o r i g i n a t i o n o r t i t l e f e e s , or m isre p re se n tin g th e n a tu re o f th o se f e e s— w o u ld e f

f e c tiv e ly r e nd e re qu i t able t ol l i ng i n the RE SPA , TI LA , orH O EPA c o n te x t a d e a d l e t t e r. C f

. E l l is v. G ener alMot ors A cce ptance C or p. , 160 F. 3d 703, 708 ( 11th C i r . 1 9 9 8) ( di s al l ow i ng e q u i t a b l e t o l l i n g v i a a f

r a u d u l e n tc o n c e a l me n td o c tr i n e f o rTI LA c laim s “ w o u ld lea d to th e a n o m a lo u s re su lt th a t a s tatu te d esig n ed to rem ed iat e the ef fe cts o f f rau d w o u ld instea d rew ard th o se p e rp e tr a to rs w h o c o n c e a led th e ir f ra u d lo n g e n o u g h to tim e -b a r th e ir v ictim s’ r e m e d y ” ); accord R am adan , 156 F. 3d at 5 0 2
. N ot abl y , c l a s s couns el r ece nt l yt ook the oppos i t e pos i t i on in a s e p a ra te la w s u it a s s e rt in g R E S P A c la im s . See Bradf or d v. W R Starke y Mor t g. , LLP , N o. 06- C V

- 86, 2008 W L 4501957, at *3 ( N
. D
. G a. Feb. 22, 2008) ( agr eei ng w i th pl ai nt i ffs that“[t ] he H U D

- 1 St at ementdoes notacc ur at el yr efl ectdefe ndant ’s c h a rg e s, a n d th e d iss e m in a tio n o f d o c u m e n ts c o n c e a lin g th is i nform at ion cons t i tut es an af fi r m at i ve ac tof conc eal m entthat ju stif ies to lli n g th e sta tu te o f lim itatio n s” ); a c c o r d Pe dr a z a v. U ni t ed G uar . C or

p. , 1 1 4 F
. S u pp. 2d 1347, 1357 ( S. D
. G a. 2 0 0 0 ); s e e a l

s o Hay n e s v . HomeE q S e r v i c i n gCorp. , N o. 04- 1081 , 2 0 0 6 W L 2 1 6 7 3 7 5 , a t* 5 ( M
. D. Te n n . Aug
. 1 , 2 0 0 6) ( “[A ] ct ions ba s ed on fr aud, ori n w hi ch a f r aud w as se lf -c o n c e a lin g , d [ o ] n o t re q u ire f u rth e r f ra u d u len t ac ts.” ); V

eal 79 plai nti ffs’ equi t able t oll i ng theo ryfor theirR E S P A cl ai m s. 24v. C r ow n A ut o D ea lers hi ps , I nc. , N o . 0 4

- C V

- 3 2 3 , 2 0 0 6 WL 4 3 5 6 9 3 , at * 3 (M .D . F la. F e b . 2 1 , 2 0 0 6 ) (“ It c a n b e re a so n a b ly i nferr ed fr om Pl ai nt i ff’ s al l egat i ons that beca us e of the al l eged i nadequa t e di s cl os ur es , he w as not aw ar e of hi s T I L A caus e of ac ti o n w ith in o n e y ea r of the [ tr an sac ti o n ]. ”). 80 C l ass c ouns el ’ s pos i t i on i s al l the more s urpr i s i ng becau se, i n contr as tt o cl ai m s underthe TILA , ourC our thas n e v e r a d d re ss e d w h e th e r R E S P A c laim s a re su b jec t to e q u itab le t ol l i ng, and ther e i s confl i ct i ng ci r cui tcou rt pr ece denton the q u e s tio n . C o m

p a re L a w

y e rs T itl e In s. C o rp . v. D e a rb o rn T itl e C or p. , 118 F. 3d 115 7 , 1166–67 ( 7th C i r . 1997) ( hol di ng that R E S P A ’s st atute o f

li m it ati o n s is subject t o eq u it ab le t o ll ing ), w i th Ha rd in v. C i t

y Ti t l e & Es cr ow C o. , 797 F. 2d 1037, 1038 (D .C . C ir. 1 9 8 6 ) (h o ld in g th a t R E S P A ’s sta tu te o f lim itatio n s is

“ a ju risd ictio n a l p re re q u isite to su it a n d a s su c h n o t su b jec t to e q u it a b le to lli n g ” ); s ee al s o Eger erv. W

oodland R eal t

y, I nc. , 556 F. 3d 415, 424 & n. 18 ( 6th C i r . 2009) ( r es ervi ng the ques t i on o f w h e th e r R E S P A ’s sta tu te o f lim itatio n s is su b

jec t to e q u itab le to lli n g ); Snow , 3 3 2 F .3 d a t 3 6 1 n .7 (s a m e ). W e ackn ow l edg e that the t i m e-bar problem w as not cl ass c ou ns e l ’ s on l yj us t i fi c a t i on fo rde c l i n i n g t o b r i ng TI LA / H O EPA cl ai m s agai ns tthe def

endant s . A s w e di s cus s ed i n C o m m u n ity B ank I , thos e addi t i onal j us t ifi cat i ons w er e: ( 1) m os tof the pu t at i ve clas s m em bers had execu t ed H O E P A dis cl osure form s; ( 2) T I L A / H O E PA cl ai m s coul d not be cert i fi ed as a cl as s act i on beca us e of i ndi vi dual i zed i s s ues thatcoul d pr edomi nat e; and ( 3)W e not e that , s i nce C om m uni t y Bank I, ourC our thas 25 hel d thatdetr i m ent al r el i ance i s an el ementof a c l ai m foractual d a m a g e s u n d e r T IL A
. S ee V al l i es v. Sky Bank , 591 F. 3d 152, 1 5 8 (3d C ir . 2 0 0 9 ) ( “ W ith o u t d e tr im e n ta l r e lia n c e , o n ly sta tutory d am ag es a re a v ail ab le [u n d er T IL A ]. ”).
I n C om m uni t

y B ank I, w e i nt i m at ed that“[t ] he D i s tr i ct 26 C our t , on anal y s i s , m ay fi nd thatthes e ex p o st r at i onal es ar e not compel l ing. ” 418 F. 3d at305. Fi r s t , w e not ed thata s i gned di s cl os ur e acknow l edgment m ay not nece s s ar i l ybe di s pos i t i ve of a l ender ’ s ( oras s i gnee’ s ) l i abi l i ty u n d er H O E PA forfai l i ng t o pr ovi de the r equi r ed di s cl os ur es w i thi n the r equi s i t e thr ee- day p e ri o d

. I

d. (c it ing 1 5 U
. S
. C
. § § 1 6 3 9 (a)(2)(A ), 1 6 4 1 (d)). Second, w e bel i eved thatthe Sett l i ng Par t i es had pr ovi ded “no pe r s ua s i ve s up po r tfo rthe pr op os i t i on tha tTI LA a nd H O EPA cl ai m s cannotbe as s ert ed as partof a c l as s act ion , ” an d not ed that the st atute “ex pli ci t l y con t em plat es the po ssi bil i tyof a c l ass act i on s ui t
. ” I

d. ( c i t i n g 1 5 U. S
. C. § 1 6 4 0 ( a ) ( 2 ) ( B) )

. F i n a l l y , we w er e s kept i cal thatthe need t o pr ove det r i m ent al r el i ance w as an in d iv id u a liz e d is s u e th a t c o u ld p re c lu d e c la s s tr e a tm e n t. I d. 81 es t abl i s hi ng actual damages on a cl as s w i de bas i s w ou l d be di ffi cul tbeca us e a TI L A cl ai m for ac tual damages r equi r es pr oof of de tr i m ent al r el i ance . 418 F. 3d at 305. T he Sett l i ng 25 26 P a rties jo in tlya d v a n c e se v e ra l ad d iti o n a l re a so n s o n a p p e a l, i ncl udi ng ( and notw i ths t andi ng the fa ct that they engage d i n no form al di s coveryon r eman d ) the s uppos ed di s coveryof “s i g n i f i c a n t e v i d e n c e ” r e b u t t i n g th e Obj e c t o r s ’ th e o ry th a tno t i t l e s ervi ces w er e per form ed i n excha nge for the fe es char ged.T hatexce pt i on i s cl as s couns el ’ s deci s i on nott o pl ead 27 claim s fo r rescission u n d er T IL A
. A s th e D istri ct C o u rt rec o g n ized , o ther c ir cu itco u rt s that h av e ad d resse d the issu e a re unani m ous thata cl ai m forr esci s s i on underT I L A cannotbe m a in ta in e d o n a c la s s w id e b a s is

. See A ndrew s v. C hevy C ha se , 545 F. 3d 570, 574 (7th C ir

. 2008) ( “The var i at i ons i n the tr ans act i onal ‘ unw i ndi ng’ pr oces s that m ayar i s e fr om one res ci ssi on t o the nex tm ake i t an ext rem el ypo or fi tfor the clas sa c tio n m e c h a n ism .”); McKenna v. F i rs tH or iz on H om e Loan C or p. , 475 F. 3d 418, 421, 423 ( 1s tC i r . 2007) ( r eas oni ng that “[t ] he r es ci s s i on pr oces s is i nt ended t o be pr i vat e, w i th the cr edi t orand debt orw or ki ng o u t the l ogi s t i cs of a gi ven r escissi on, ” and c oncl udi ng that“C ongr es s di d noti nt end re sc iss io n su it s to re c e iv e c las s-a c tio n tre a tm e n t”) ; Jam es v. H o m e C o n str . C o . o

f Mo b ile , 621 F. 2d 727, 731 ( 5th C i r . 1980) ( s a me )

. T h o u g h we n e e d n o twe i g h i n h e r e o n th a tq u e s t i o n , we agree w i th the D i stri ctC ou rtthat, i n l i gh tof thi s aut ho ri ty , cl ass couns el w as not i nadequa t e for decl i ni ng t o pur s ue a c l as s w i de re s c is s io n c la im o n re m a n d

. 82 (S ett li n g P arti es’ B r. at 10 6
. ) W e em ph asi ze t hat the d et erm inat i on of w hethercl ass c o u n se l is a d e q u a te, in c lu d in g w h e th e r th e ya c ted re a so n a b lyin decli ning t o asser tcert ai n p otent i al cl ai m s on beh al f of the clas s, i s comm i t t ed t o a di s tr i ctcourt ’ s s o u n d d iscret i on, as i ti s i n a bett erpos i t i on than w e t o eval uat e cl as s couns el ’ s per form ance . U nfor tunat el y , the D i s tr i ct C our t , w i th one exc ept i on, di d not 27 d isc u ss a n yo f

c las s c o u n se l’s ju stif

ica tio n s f

o r d e c lin in g toT here are approxim at el y80 0 N o rth C arol i na clas s 28 m ember s w ho r ece i ved l oans fr om C B N V and ar e mem ber s of the set t l em ent cl ass i n the consoli dated cl ass act i on s befo re us. 83 as s ertT I L A / H O E PA cl ai m s , i ns t ead f ocus i ng s ol el yon the st a tu te- of-l i m i t at i on s ar gu m ents adv anced bythe d efen dan t s. See Set t l i ng Par t i es ’ B r . at 111 ( acknow l edgi ng thatthe D i s tr i ct C o u rt “ e lec ted n o t to re a c h th e se a r g u m e n ts in lig h t o f its det ermi nat i on thatthe cl ai m s w er e t i m e- barr ed”)

. W e do not deal w i th thos e j us t i fi cat i ons i n the fi r s ti ns t ance , and r emand f o r th e C o u rt to d o s o . C

f

. H ydr ogen Perox i de , 552 F. 3d at307 ( “I n deci di ng w hether t o cert i fy a cl as s underFed. R
. C i v. P. 23, the di s tr i ctcourtm us t
. . . cons i deral l relev an t e vi dence and arg u m en ts prese n ted b ythe p arti es.”). W e a g ain s tr ess that w e d o n o t h o ld that class co u n sel are nece s s ar i l yi nadequa t e r epr es ent at i ves forthe cl ass ( orany subclas s th a t is creat ed). W e con cl ud e, ho w ever, that cl ass couns el ’ s j us t i fi cat i ons forthei rdeci s i on no t to pl ead T I L A / H O E PA cl ai m s agai ns tthe def endant s on behal f of the c l a s s m e r i tc l o s e rs c ru t i n y.

5
. T h e N o rth C aro li n a O b jectors W e turn to the o b

jection s to the D istri ct C o u rt ’s c e rtific a tio n d e c isio n lo d g e d b yth re e c las s m e m b e rs f ro m N o rth C arol i na (T royE l l i ott , L orr ai ne O sw al d, and R uth M at his

W i s s eh) , r epr es ent ed byJ er om e H art zel l of the N or th C ar ol i na

28M r. B u m p e rs o p ted o u t o f th e c las s, a n d th u s is n o t a 29 partyt o these appeals

. 84 law firm H artzell & W h it em an , L L P
. T h ese class m em b ers ar gue thatthe C our t abus ed i t s di s cr et i on i n det erm i ni ng thatthe nam ed p l ai nti ffs w ere adequ at e cl ass r epresent at i ves fo r cl ass m e m b e rs f

ro m N o rt h C a ro lin a . W e h av e n o t y et discu ssed the un iqu e pro ce d u ral hist o ry appl i cabl e t o the N or th C ar ol i na O bj ect or s , and onl ybr i efl ydo s o h ere . I n Sept ember2001, M r . E l l i ot tand another i ndi vi dual

— T r avi s B um per s

— fi l ed a put at i ve cl as s act i on 29 ag ains t C B N V an d C h ase M an h att an B an k in th e S u p erior C o u rt of W ake Count y , North Ca r o l i n a (B um pers v. C om m uni t

y Bank), as s ert i ng s t at e l aw cl ai m s under N or th C ar ol i na’ s U nfai rT r ade P r a c t i c e s A c t. See N
. C
. G en. St at
. § 75- 1. 1. T he ca s e w as r emoved on t he bas i s o f all eged f eder al pr eempt i on and then re m a n d e d b a c k to s ta te c o u rt
. I n M ay 2 0 0 3 , the B um pers plai nti ffs m ov ed fo r cl ass c e rtific a tio n in sta te c o u rt. In Ju n e 2 0 0 3 , the d e f e n d a n ts re m o v e d th e c a se a g a in to f e d e ra l c o u rt, a n d th e p lain tiff s a g a in m o v e d to re m a n d . T h e c a se w a s th e n v o lu n tar ilytra n sf e rre d to th e Di s tr i c tCo u r ti n o u rc a s e f o ri n c l u s i o n a s p a r to f

th e M DL p roceedi ng. I n addi t i on, the D i s tr i ctC our tperm i t t ed the B um pers pl ai nt i ffs t o i nt ervene i n the cons ol i dated Kes s l er a c tio n .85 Fr om D ece m ber 2005 onw ar d, couns el forthe B um pers p lain tiff s re p e a ted lyre q u e ste d th a t th e D istric t C o u rt ru le o n its 2003 m ot i on t o r emand. A tthe s ame t i m e, couns el f il ed a m ot i on ( i n M ar ch 2006) i n the cons ol i dat ed K essler a c tio n in s uppor tof the cr eat i on of a s epar at e s ubcl as s of N or th C ar ol i na borr ow er s . I n addi t i on, the A t t orneyG ener al of N or th C ar ol i na s ubm i t t ed a s t at ementt o the D i s tr i ctC o u rt oppos i ng “the uni form sett l ementi n I

n r e C om m uni t

y Bank t o the ext entthat i tpr opos es t o tr eat N or th C ar ol i na borr ow er s the s ame as other c las s m e m b e rs w h o a re n o t e n tit led to th e p ro tec tio n s o f N o rth C ar ol i na l aw . ” I n J anuary2008 ( and bef or e the cl as s w as r e- cert i fi ed and th e M od i fi ed S et t l em ent approved ), the D i stri ctC ou rtfi nally rule d o n an d g ran ted th e 2 0 0 3 m o ti o n to rem an d

. T h e C o u rt si m ult aneo usl y den i ed as “m oo t ” t he N orth C arol i na O bject ors’ m o tio n f o r a s u b c la s s o f

N o rt h C a ro lin a b o rr o w e rs . O n r emand i n N or th C ar ol i na s t at e court , the B um pers pl ai nt i ffs ( 1) fi l ed a mot i on fors um m ary j udgm ent , and ( 2) pur s ued thei rM ay200 3 m ot i on forcl as s cert i fi cat i on. H ow ever, i n M arch 20 08 , the D i stri ctC ou rtgrant ed d efen dan t s’ m ot i on t o enj oi n t he s t at e cl as s pr ocee di ngs i n B um pers . T hough cl as s pr ocee di ngs w er e enj oi ned, the na m ed pl ai nt i ffs i n B um

pers p roc ee d ed w ith their m o ti o n fo r sum m ary j udgm ent
. T he N or th C ar ol i na Super i orC our tgr ant ed part i al su m m a ryju d g m e n t in f a v o r o f B u m p e rs a n d T ro yE lli o tt,C B N V appea l ed thatj udgm ent , but the N or th C ar ol i na 30 C our tof A ppeal s di s m i s s ed i t , rul i ng thatthe appe al w as i nt er l ocut orybeca us e the Super i orC ourt ’ s or derexpr es s l yl eft t h e i s s u e o f

a tto rn e y s ’ f

e e s to b e d e c id e d

. Bu mpe rs v. Comm u n i t

y Ba n k of

N

. V a. , 675 S. E
. 2d 697 ( N
. C
. C t
. A pp. 2 0 0 9 )

. Af

t e ro r a l a r g u me n ti n th e c u rr e n ta p p e a l s , th e S u p r e me C ou rtof N orth C arol i na reversed the C ou rtof A p peals ’ deci s i on, and conc l uded that “an unr es ol ved r eques tforatt orney f ees do es no t preven t fi nali ty of a j ud gm ent dis po si ng o f a ll i s s ues i n the under l y i ng s ubs t ant i ve cl ai m . ” B um pers , 695 S. E
. 2d at446. A s of thi s w r i t i ng , the C our tof A ppeal s on re m a n d h a s n o t yet ru le d o n th e m e ri ts o f th e a p p e a l. 86 c o n c lu d in g th a t C B N V h a d v io late d N o rth C a ro lin a ’s U n f a ir T r ade Pr act ices A cti n tw o w ay s : ( 1) bychar gi ng a “l oan di s countfee ” forpr ovi di ng a l oan that w as noti n fac t d isco u n ted; an d (2) a sses sing “se tt lem en t ch a rg es” that w ere “r edundantfee s co v eri ng the s ame se r vi ces and dupl i cat i ve of th e ‘o ri g in a tio n f

e e s ’ c h a rg e d b y” C B N V
. B um pers v. C om m uni t

y Bank of

N

. V a. , 6 9 5 S
. E
. 2 d 4 4 2 , 4 4 4 (N

. C
. 2 0 1 0 ). T he C our taw ar ded damages i n the amount s of $10, 401. 67 and $ 1 0 ,9 9 9 , res p e c tiv e ly , to B u m p e rs a n d E lli o tt. 30 C ouns el forthe B um

pers pl ai nt i ffs then fi l ed obj ect i ons t o cert i fi cat i on an d appr oval of the M odi fi ed Sett l ementi n the cons ol i dat ed Kessler act i on, and appea r ed atthe J une 2008 fi nal fai r n e s s h e a r i n g . Cou n s e l a r g u e d th a tth e Nor th Ca r o l i na borr ow er s ’ s t at e l aw cl ai m s w er e uni quel y val uabl e beca us e: ( 1) th e ya re s u bje c t to m a n d a to ry tre b le d a m a g e s , s ee N
. C
. G en.87 S tat. § 7 5 -1 6 ; (2 ) a f

o u r-y e a r sta tu te o f

lim itatio n s a p p lies to th o s e c la im s , i d. § 75- 16. 2, a fa rm or e gene r ous l i m i t at i ons per i od than underR E SPA orT I L A / H O E PA ; and ( 3) ther e w as no w dem on strabl e evidence of the un i qu e value of these cl ai m s, as the B um

pers p lain tiff

s h a d e n g a g e d in e x ten siv e d isc o v e ryin s t at e court , pr oven li abi l i ty , and w on s i gni fi cant , tr ebl ed dam ages. T he D i s tr i ctC our tdi d n otaddr es s the N or th C ar ol i na Obj e c t o r s ’ a r g u me n t s u n t i l th e v e rye n d o f i t s Aug u s t2008 M emora ndum appr ovi ng the s ett l ement
. T he C our ts t at ed: R e m a rk a b ly , [c o u n se l f o r th e p lain tif

f s in B um pers ] now obj ect s t o the sett l em ent because w e di d notcr eat e a s ub

- cl as s of N or th C ar ol i na borr o w ers. The s ol e purpos e of the r eques t ed su b -c las s w o u ld b e to a s se rt th e sa m e N o rth C ar ol i na s t at e l aw cl ai m s o v erw hi ch they p rev iou sly arg u ed

— su cc essf u ll y
— that this co u rt has no s ubj ectm att erj ur i s di ct i on. T hi s obj ect i on is w ith o u t m e rit. (E m p h a s is in o ri g in a l.) W e agr ee w i th the N or th C ar ol i na O bj ect or s that , t o the ext entthe D i s tr i ctC our tr ej ect ed thei r adequa cychal l enge ba s ed o n its p e rc e iv e d lac k o f su b jec t m a tter ju ris d ic tio n o v e r th e ir s t at e l a w cl a i ms , i te r r e d

. As o u rCou r th a s h e l d , “ a j u d gm entW e a re no tpersuaded bythe S et t l i ng P art i es’ 31 s ugges t i o n thatanyadequa cy - of- r epr es ent at i on pr obl em w as cur ed bec aus e N or th C ar ol i na borr ow er s di s s at i s fi ed w i th the M o d if ie d S e ttle m e n t c o u ld h a v e o p te d o u t o f th e c la s s . C

f

. In re D i et D r ugs , 4 3 1 F
. 3 d at 14 5 (“In a class w h ere o p t ou t r igh ts are aff or ded, [due pr oces s ] pr ot ect i ons ar e ade quat e r epr es ent at i on bythe cl as s r epr es ent at i ves , not i ce of the cl as s pr ocee di ngs , and the o pp ortun i tyt o b e heard an d p art i ci pate i n the cl ass pr ocee di ngs . ”) ( ci t i ng P h ill ip s P e tro leu m C o . v. Sh utt s , 47 2 U. S. 88 pur s uantt o a cl as s s ett l ementcan barl at ercl ai m s bas ed on the al l egat i ons under l y i ng the cl ai m s i n th e s ett l ed cl as s act i on. T hi s i s true eve n though the pr ecl uded cl ai m w as notpr es ent ed, and could nothave be en present ed , in th e c la s s a c tio n its e lf.” I n r e P r udent i al I

ns . C o. of A m . Sal es P r act i ce Li t ig. , 261 F. 3d 355, 366 ( 3d C i r . 2001) ( emphasi s added)

. I tfol l ow s thatabs ent cl ass m em bers w i th clai m s bei ng rel eased a s p artof a c l ass s ett l ement , even thos e overw hi ch a di s tr i ctcourtl acks s ubj ect m att erj ur i s di ct i on, ar e notbarr ed fr om cha ll engi ng the adequa cyof cl ass r epr es ent at i ves orthe fa i rnes s of the se ttl e m e n t. T he Sett l i ng Par t i es count erthatthe D i s tr i ct C o u r tw as n o t req u ir ed to “ap p o int n am ed class rep rese n tat ives fro m ev ery s t at e in o rde r t o appr ove a s ett l ementthatr el eas es s t at e l aw c laim s.” (S e ttl in g P a rties ’ B r. at 1 4 0 .) W e n o d o u b t ag re e w ith thats t at ement , butthi s w as notthe ar gum entm ade t o the D i s tr i ct C our t
. T hough w e expr es s no opi ni on on w hetherthe 317 9 7 , 8 1 1

– 1 2 (1 9 8 5 ))

. 89 N or th C ar ol i na O bj ect or s ’ cl ai m s ar e “uni quel y ” val uabl e as c o mp a r e d t o th e o th e r c l a s s me mb e r s ’ s t a t e l a w c l a i ms , we concl ude thei rar gum ent s m er i t ed more di s cus s i on than the C o u rt g a v e th e m . C

f

. C o m m u n it

y Bank I, 418 F. 3d at309–10 ( di r ect i ng the C our tt o “paypart i cul aratt ent i on t o the pr eval ence o f c o lo ra b le T IL A , H O E P A , an d o ther cl aim s thatthe i ndi vi dual cl ass m em bers m ayhav e w hich w ere notassert ed b ycl ass couns el ” (e m p has i s added) )

. W e r eques tthatthe C our ton r emand cons i der the N or th C ar ol i na O bj ect or s ’ ar gum ent s and d e ter m in e w h e th e r th e c re a tio n o f a su b c las s is n e c e ss a ryto r e p r e s e n tth e i ri n t e r e s t s a d e q u a t e l y. B
. T he Fai rnes s of the Sett l ement T he Set t l i ng Par t i es ar gue that , “eve n i f the [D ]i s tr i ct [ C] o u r t ’ s a n a l y s i s a b o u tth e v i a b i l i tyo f th e p o s i t ed T I L A / H O E PA cl ai m s w er e fl aw ed

. . . , the M odi fi ed Sett l ement st i l l shou l d b e app roved, given that i tfai rl ycom pen sat es C l ass m ember s forthos e hypothet i cal cl ai m s . ” (Sett l i ng Par t i es ’ B r . at 161. ) W e di s agr ee, as ther e i s no “harm l es s err or ” doctr i ne that appl i es t o cur e a c l ass repr es ent at i ve’ s i nadequa cyi n l i ghtof wh a tma ya p p e a rt o b e a “ fa i r ” s e tt l e me n t
. As th e S u p r e me C o u rt h a s re c o g n iz e d , [w ]he re diff

ere n ce s am o n g m em b ers of a class are s u c h th a ts u b c l a s s e s mu s t b e e s t a b l i s h e d , we90 k n o w o f n o a u th o rityth a t p e rm it s a c o u rt to appr ove a s ett l ement w i thout cr eat i ng s ubcl as s es o n the b asis o f c o n sen ts by m em b ers of a u n it ary cl as s , s om e of w hom happen t o be mem ber s of the di s t i ncts ubgr oups . T he cl as s r epr es ent at i ves m ay w ell h ave thoughtthatthe Sett l ements erves the aggr egat e i nt er es t s o f the ent i r e cl as s . B utthe adv ers i tyamong subgr oups r equi r es thatthe m ember s of ea ch s ubgr oup cannotbe bound t o a s ett l ement exce pt by cons ent s gi ven by thos e w ho under s t and t hat thei r r ol e i s t o r epr es ent s ol el ythe m em bers of t heirres pecti ve sub group s. A m chem , 5 2 1 U
. S. at627 ( quot i ng In re J o in t E . a n d

S . D ist. A s bes t os Li t ig. , 982 F. 2d 721, 742–43 ( 2d C i r . 1992) )

. I ndeed,

“ th e d e ter m in a tio n w h e th e r ‘p ro p o se d c las se s a re su f f icie n tly cohes i ve t o w arr ant adj udi cat i on’ m us t focus on ‘ ques t i ons that pr eexi s tanys ett l ement
. ’ ” O rtiz , 527 U
. S. at858 ( q uot i ng A m chem , 5 2 1 U .S . at 6 2 2

– 2 3 ); see als o G eneral Motors , 55 F. 3d at795 ( “[T]h e i nqui ryi nt o the s ett l ement ’ s fai rnes s cannot con ceptual l yrepl ace t he inquiry in to t he p ropri et yof class c e rtific a tio n .”). A c c o rd in g ly , b e c a u se th e se ttl e m e n t a p p e a rs to l ack “ s tructur al as s ur ance of fa i rand ade quat e r e p r e s ent at i on for the di ver s e gr oups and i ndi vi dual s aff ect ed, ” A m chem , 52 1 U. S. a t627, w e aga i n decl i ne “t o addr es s defi ni t i vel y ” the s ubs t ant i veA p p e a l N o . 0 9 -2 0 0 1 w a s f il e d b yth e p lain tiff

s in 32 D re n n a n v . C o m m u n ity B a n k o f N o rth e rn V

irg in ia , a no n-cl ass a c t i on a s s e r t i ng c l a i ms f orr e s c i s s i on again s tCB N V a nd RFC that w as transferred t o the D i stri ct C ou rt . T h e se pl ai nt i ffs

— J ohn and R ow ena D renna n, D avi d and D i ane G arner , and Shaw n and Lore ne St arkey

— di d notopt outof the M odi fi ed Sett l ement , butnonethel es s ar gue that thei rr es ci s s i on cl ai m s w er e notw i thi n the s cope of the s ett le m ent ’ s r el eas e. T h e D istric t C o u rt d isa g re e d a n d g ra n ted d e f e n d a n ts’ m o tio n to di s m i s s thei rcl ai m s . I n l i ghtof ourdeci s i on t o vacat e the C o u r t ’ s cert i fi cat i on or derand appr oval of the M odi fi ed S e ttl e m e n t, w e d o n o t ad d re ss th is a rg u m e n t. I n i t s m os textr eme for m , th is pos i t i on i s exempl i fi ed 33 b yth e b r i e f

s f i l e d b yc o u n s e l f

o rth e Obj e c t o r s f

r o m Al a ba ma and G eor gi a, att orneyFr ankl i n R
. N i x. M r . N i x— bel i evi ng that “the s t at e of the r ecor d i s s uch thatm er el yvoi di ng the ‘ m odi fi ed sett l em ent’ and returni ng the case t o i t s st atus qu o ant e w o u ld 91 f a irn e ss o f

th e se ttl e m e n t. C om m uni t y B ank I, 418 F. 3d at318. 32
H ow ever , nothi ng w e have s ai d s houl d be i nt erpr et ed as concl udi ng thatthe t ot al compensa ti o n pr ovi ded i n M odi fi ed Set t l ementcoul d notbe appr oved as fai r , ad equat e, or reas on able. In part i cular , w e are troubled bythe O bject ors’ appar ent b eli ef t hatanys ett l ementthatdoes notful l yacc ount fo r (1) tr eb led d am ag es u n d er R E S P A , an d (2) th e f u ll m ea su re of s t atut ory( i n addi t i on t o ac tual ) damages underT I L A and H O E PA , i s hopel es s l yi nadequa t e, unfai r , and unreas onabl e. 33sad d le clas s m e m b ers w ith o n lym o re o f th e ‘law ’s d el ay ’”— urges us no t on l y t o vacat e the sett l em ent, bu t to re m a n d th is c a se (to a d if f e re n t D istric t C o u rt Ju d g e ) w ith instruction s to en ter an o rde r g ra n tin gsu m m a ry ju d g m e n t “for al l cl as s m ember s . . . as t o l i abi l i tyand damages forvi ol at i ons of T I LA , TI LA r esci ssi on , H O E P A , and R E S P A [. ]” ( O bject ors’ B r . , N o. 08- 3790, at1, 28. ) W e agr ee w i th the Sett l i ng Par t i es thatM r . N i x’ s r eques t“i s bey ond unor thodox and has no s u p p o rt in th e la w , th e ru le s o f p r o c e d u re , o r t h e re c o rd .” (S e ttlin g P a rt ie s ’ B r. a t 5 0 n .6 .) W e th e re f o re re je c t it. 92 C o n tra ryto th e O b

jec to rs’ c o n ten tio n s, w e k n o w o f n o a u th o rity th a t requir es a di s tr i ctcourtt o as s es s the fa i rnes s of a s ett l ement in lig h t o f t h e p o te n tia l f o r t re b le d d a m a g e s . C o m p a re Su ffo lk Ct y . v . Lo n gI

s la n d Li g ht i ng , 9 0 7 F
. 2 d 1 2 9 5 , 1 3 2 4 (2d C ir

. 1 9 9 0 ) ( “ [ I ] ti s i n a p p r o p r i a t e t o me a s u r e th e a d e quacy of a set t l em ent am ou nt bycom p a rin g i tt o a p ossi ble trebl ed b ase re c o v e ry f

ig u re .” ), w i th R odr iguezv. W es tP ub lishi ng C or

p. , 56 3 F
. 3d 948, 964–65 ( 9th C i r . 2009) ( “W e have never p re c lu d e d c o u rts f

ro m c o m p a rin g th e se ttl e m e n t am o u n t to b o th s i ngl e and tr eble damages

. B ythe s ame t oken, w e do not re q u ir e th e m to d o s o in a ll c a s e s .” ). I n anyevent , the D i s tr i ctC our t

— havi ng det erm i ned that the T IL A /H O E P A claim s w ere n o t viab le be ca u se th eyw ere tim e -b a rre d

— n e v e r a d d re ss e d th e f a irn e ss o f

th e se ttl e m e n t in l i g h to f th e p o t e n t i a l s t a tu t o ryd amage s a v a i l a b l e u n d e rTI LA and H O E PA , and w e do notdo s o i n the fi r s ti ns t ance . W e poi nt93 o u t, h o w ev er, that the O b jectors’ co n tention s that the s tatu tory d am ag es av ail ab le in a T IL A /H O E P A class act io n a re
“ a u to m a tic,” a n d th a t “ th e re is n o ju d icia l d isc re tio n in v o lv e d in th e a w a r d to b e m a d e to th e C las s M e m b e rs,” a re sim p ly in c o rre c t. (O b

jec to rs’ B r., N o . 0 8 -3 6 2 1 , at 9 1 .) T h e sta tu te m ak es c lear that, alth o u g h there is no ca p o n claim s fo r st atuto ry d am ag es i n a class acti o n asse rt ing v iolati o n s o f th e d iscl o su re re q u ir e m e n ts f

o r l o a n s s u b

je c t to H O E P A , s ee s upr a at14 n. 9, a di s tr i ctcourtnonethel es s h as di s cr et i on— aft ercons i der i ng s ever al s peci fi cal l ys t at ed fa ct or s

— i n det erm ining the amount o f th e a w a rd to th e c la s s . See 1 1 5 U
. S
. C
. § 1 6 4 0 (a) (“In det erm i ni ng the amountof aw ar d i n any class a cti o n , the c o u rt s hal l cons i der , among otherr el evantfac t or s , the amountof any actual damages aw ard ed, the fr equenc yand per s i s t ence of fai l ur es of compl i ance bythe cr edi t or , the r es our ces of the cr edi t or, the numberof per s ons adver s el yaff ect ed, and the ext ent t o w hi ch the cr edi t or ’ s fai l ur e of complianc e w as in te n tio n a l.” (e m p h a s is a d d e d ))

. C
. T he O bj ect or s ’ R enew ed M ot i on t o I nt ervene In addit i on t o thei r chal l eng es t o the D i stri ctC ou rt ’s cl ass c e rtific a tio n d e c isio n a n d a p p ro v a l o f th e M o d if ied S e ttl e m e n t, the O bj ect or s al s o cont end thatthe C our tabus ed i t s di s cr et i on w h e n it d e n ied a s u n tim e lyth e ir N o v e m b e r 2 0 0 7 m o tio n to in te r v e n e . In lig h t o f

o u r c o n c lu sio n th a t th e C o u rt e rre d in e v a lu a tin g th e a d e q u a c yre q u ire m e n t, l itt le tu rn s o n th is ques t i on; on r emand, the C our ts houl d r evi s i tw hetherthe n amed94 plai nti ffs and cl ass coun sel are adequ at e cl ass r epresent at i ves, a n d th e O b

jec to rs m a ya g a in se e k to in te r v e n e in th a t co n tex t. I n a n y e v e n t, w e c o n c lu d e th a t th e C o u rt d id n o t ab u se its d isc re tio n in d e n y in g th e O b jec to rs’ re n e w e d m o tio n to i nt ervene. I n C om m uni t

y Bank I, w e sta ted th a t “ [ t]h e tim e f ra m e in w hi ch a c l as s m emb er m ayfi l e a mot i on t o i nt ervene chall eng i ng the ad equ acy of cl ass repres entat i on m ust be atl east as l ong as the t i m e i n w hi ch s /he mayopt
- outof the cl as s . ” 418 F. 3d at314. M or eover , a mot i on t o i nt ervene made w i thi n that t i m e per i od i s “pr es um pt i vel yt i m el y . ” I d. T h e O b

jec to rs n o te thattheyfi l ed thei rr enew ed mot i on t o int ervene i n N ovember 2 0 0 7 , b e f

o r e th e o p t
- o u tp e r i o d h a d e n d e d

. Acc o r d i n g l y , they c o n te n d th a t th e irre n e w e d m o tio n w a s tim e ly. H ow ever , w e al s o s tr es s ed i n C o m m u n it y B a n k I thatthe “[t ] i m el i nes s of an i nt ervent i on r eques t ‘ i s det erm i ned b ythe t ot al i tyof the ci r cumst ance s . ’ ” I d. ( quot i ng U

ni t ed Stat es v. A l can A l um i num , I

nc. , 2 5 F
. 3 d 1 1 7 4 , 1 1 8 1 ( 3 d Ci r . 1 9 9 4 ) )

. As not ed, the O bj ect or s w i thdr ew thei r2003 m ot i on t o i nt ervene on r emand, appar ent l ybel i evi ng thatthe M D L tr ans ferof the H obs on a c tio n w o u ld p e rm it th e m a n o p p o rtu n ity , in e f f e c t, t o depos e exi s t i ng cl as s couns el and t ake ove rthes e cons ol i dat ed cl as s act i ons . T he r ecor d r evea l s thatthi s expec t at i on w as u n f o u n d e d ; th e C o u rt n e v e r to ld th e O bje c to rs it w o u ld p e rm it them t o fi l e an a m ended c ons ol i dat ed compl ai ntforal l of the cons ol i dat ed ac t i ons , and made cl eardur i ng the N ovember200595 confe r ence thati ti nt en d ed t o addr es s cl as s cert i fi cat i on and appr oval of the M odi fi ed Set t l ement i n the cons ol i dat ed Kes s l er act i on befor e deal i ng w i th anym att er s i n the othertr ans ferr ed c a s e s . In a n ye v e n t, on c e th e D is tr ic t C o u rt d e ter m in e d (in O ct ober2006) t hatt he TILA / H O E PA cl ai m s w er e notvi abl e, the O bj ect or s w ere on not i ce thatthei ri nt er es t s w oul d notbe a d e q u a telyp u rsu e d b yth e n a m e d p lain tiff s a n d th e ir c o u n se l. T he O bj ect or s nonethel es s w ai t ed al m os ta y ear b efor e fi l i ng th e ir re n e w e d m o tio n to in te rv e n e . See J os eph M

. M cLaughl i n, McLaughl i n on C las s A ct i ons : Law and P r act i ce § 4: 36, at769 (6 th e d . 2 0 1 0 ) (“ T h is ‘s it b a c k a n d w a it’ ap p ro a c h [ is im p e rm iss ib le ] w h e re th e w o u ld -b e in ter v e n o rs s h o u ld r eas onabl yknow thatthei ri nt er es t s w i l l n o longe rbe r epr es ent ed bythe named pl ai nt i ff, as w her e the named pl ai nt i ffs ’ l i t i gat i on deci s i ons i ndi cat e t hattheyhave a bandoned [ce r t ai n] cl ai m s . . . . ”)

. I n thes e ci r cumst ance s , w e ca nnots ay thatthe C our tabus ed i t s di s cr et i on i n deny i ng as unt imel ythe O bj ect or s ’ r enew ed mot i on t o i nt ervene. D
. T he O bj ect or s ’ R enew ed Pet i t i on forM andamus t o R ecus e the D i s tr i ctJ udge Fol l ow i ng or al ar gu m en ti n C om m uni t y Bank I, the O bj ect or s m oved t o r eas s i gn thes e ac t i ons t o a di ffe r entD i s tr i ct C our tJ udge i n the eve ntw e vac at ed the C our t ’ s cert i fi ca t i on and s ett l ementappr oval deci s i on s. T heypurpor t ed t o m ove96 u n d e r 2 8 U .S .C . § 2 1 0 6 , w h ich a u th o riz e s f e d e ra l ap p e llate c o u rts to aff i r m , m odi fy , vaca t e, s etas i de orr ever s e any ju d g m e n t, d e c re e , o r o rd e r o f a c o u rt law f

u lly br ought befor e i t for r evi ew , [or ] r eman d the c a u se a n d d ir e c t th e e n tryo f su c h a p p ro p ria te ju d g m e n t, d e c re e , o r o rd e r, orr equi r e s uch f urther pro c e e d ings t o b e ha d a s m ay b e j ust underthe ci r cum s tances . I d. (em ph asi s added ). W e con strued the O bject ors’ m oti on as a p eti ti o n fo r m an d am u s, see k ing a n o rde r fro m o u r C o u rt di r ect i ng the D i s tr i ctC our tJ udge t o r ecus e hi m s el f under28 U
. S
. C
. 45 5, w hich provides as foll ow s: ( a) A nyj us t i ce, j udge, or m agi s tr at e of the U ni t ed St at es s hal l di s qual i fy hi m s el f i n anypr ocee di ng i n w hi ch hi s i m part i al itym i ghtr eas onabl ybe ques t i oned. ( b) [The j udge] s hal l al s o di s qual i fy hi m s el f i n the foll ow i ng ci rcum st ances: ( 1) W her e he has a per s onal bi as or p rej udi ce c oncerni ng a party , orper s onal k n o w led g e o f

d isp u ted e v id e n ti a ry f a c ts c o n c e rn in g th e p ro c e e d in g [ .]W e not e t hat the D i s tr i ct C ourt coul d nothave c ert i fi ed 34 i t s 20 06 M e mo r a n d u m f o ra p p e l l a t e r e v i e w u n d e r2 8 U. S
. C. § 1292( b) or Feder al R ul e of Ci vi l Pr ocedur e 54( b) , as i tw as an interl o cu toryruli n g o n a q u esti o n o f law , n o t an o rde r or a ju d g m e n t. See Li nk v. Mer cede s - B enzof N

. A

. , I nc. , 550 F. 2d 8 6 0 , 8 6 3 (3d C ir

. 1 9 7 7 ) ( e n banc ) ( “[O ] urj ur i s di ct i on ext ends o n lyto o rd e rs o f

th e d istric t co u rt.”); s ee al s o W ri g h t & M il ler, 97 I d. ; C om m uni t

y Bank I, 4 1 8 F. 3 d a t 3 1 9

– 2 0
. W e d e n i ed t he O b jectors’ p eti ti o n fo r m an d am u s, n o ti n g that they h ad “m a[ d ]e no al l egat i on thatthe D i s tr i ctC our tder i ved i t s al l eged bi as fr om an extr aj udi ci al s our ce, ” buti ns t ead r el i ed sol el y on “rul i ngs or s t at ement s m ade bythe D i s tr ict C our tdur i ng the cour s e of the p r o c eedi ngs . ” I

d. a t 3 2 0 ; s ee al

s o Li t eky v. U

ni t ed Stat es , 510 U
. S. 540, 555 ( 1994) ( “[J ] udi ci al rul i ngs al on e al m os tnever c o n s titu te a v a lid b a s is f o r a b ia s o r p a rt ia lity m o tio n .” ). B efor e or al ar gum enti n the curr entappea l s , the O bje ct or s agai n m oved t o r eas s i gn thes e ac t i ons t o a di ffe r ent D istri ct C o u rtJu d g e— “p u rsua n t t o [o u r C o u rt ’s] sup erv isory pow er s and author i tyunder 28 U
. S. C
. § 2106, ” M ot
. at1— i n the eventw e agai n r emand. I n s uppor t of t hei r cl ai m s of bi as , they r e l yon the fo l l owi ng : ( 1) the D i s tr i c tCour t ’s ex p a rte confe r ence s w i th the S ett l i ng Par t i es dur i ng the cour s e of the pr ocee di ngs b ef

o re ourdeci s i on i n C om m uni t y Bank I; ( 2) the e r r o n e o u s l e g a l c o n c l u s i o n s i n th e Co u r t ’ s 2 0 0 6 M e mo r a n d u m, an d it s ref

u sal to certi fy that M em o ran d u m fo r an interl o cu tory appea l ; and ( 3) the C our t ’ s s uppos ed fa i l ur e t o ad vance the

34Feder alP r act i ce and Proc edur e § 3930 n. 2 ( di s tr i ctcourt s do n o t h a v e th e a u th o ri ty to c e rt if y“ is s u e s ” to a c o u rt o f

a p p e a ls ). Par t i cul ar l ybas el es s ar e the tw o new “extr aj udi ci al 35 so u rce s” su p p o sed ly s u g g esti v e o f b ias th at th e O b jectors i dent i fy : ( 1) that the D i s tr i ct C our t J udge w as a s peake ratR eed S m ith L L P ’ s “ D iv e r s it y R e tr e a t” in 2 0 0 5 ( R e e d S m it h re p re se n ts R F C i n this case) ; and (2) on e of the Judge’s form er l aw cl erks, now a U ni t ed S t at es M agi s tr at e J udge, w as a partneratR eed S m ith f o r 1 3 y e a rs. M o t. a t 2 8

– 2 9 . N o t o n lya re th e se f a c ts w hol l yi n ad eq u at e t o s how obj ect i ve bi as , w e not e thatthe O bj ect or s neverr ai s ed thes e conc erns w i th the D i s tr i ctJ udge. In th a t lig h t, w e b e liev e Ju d g e Z ieg ler a p tlyc h a ra c ter ize d (in h is “advi s ory ” rul i ng) the O bj ect or s ’ att acks on the D i s tr i ctJ udge: W e s houl d not e that , w hi l e cr i t i ci s m of a di s tr i ct co u rt ’s u n fa v o rab le ruli n g s an d p roc ed u res a re c o m m o n a n d e x p e c ted , O b jec to rs’ c o u n se l h a s, in 98 M D L p ro c e e d in g (sp e c if ica lly , it s f

a ilu re to ru le o n m o tio n s in the H obs on a c tio n f

ile d b yc o u n s e l f

o r t h e O b je c to rs ). W e aga i n cons true the O bj ect or s ’ m ot i on as a pet i t i on for m andamus. A s i s evi dent fr om the above, how ev er, t he O bj ect or s once mor e r el y o n li tt l e more than the “rul i ngs or s t at e me n t s ma d e b yth e Di s tr i c tCou r td u r i n g th e c o u r s e o f t he p ro c e e d in g s ” in s u p p o rt o f th e ir re n e w e d p e titio n . C o m m u n ity B ank I, 418 F. 3d at320. T h e O bj ect or s ’ otheral l egat i ons of bias on the p artof the D i stri ctC ou rtbo rderon the fri vo l ou s, 35ourvi ew , exce eded the bounds of pr ofes s i on al co n d u c tb yma k i n g u n warr a n t e d , unnece s s aryand, q u ite fr a n k ly , silly a ttac k s o n th e d istric t co u rt in its leg a l b rie f

. . . . T h e se a tta c k s s e r v e o n lyto r educe t he ci vi l i ty and decorum of the p roc ee d ing s[.]
I n thi s cont ext , w e bel i eve i t appr opr i at e t o r e- s t at e our 36 c l o s i n g a d mo n i t i o n f

r o m C om m uni t

y Bank I : W e not e as w el l thatthe D i s tr i ctC ourtw as bes i eged byopposing gr oups of l aw y er s w ho f l o o d e di twi th num er ous m ot i ons , ar gum ent s , and c o u n ter -a rg u m e n ts, w h ich u n d o u b ted lym a d e it 99 and w e ar e tr oubl ed bythei racc us at i ons

— w hi ch w e s ee nothi ng in th e re c o rd to su p p o rt— th a t th e D istr ic t C o u rt in ten tio n a lly di s r egar ded ourm andat e i n C o m m u n it y B a n k I i n or dert o r eac h a p re -d e te rm in e d re s u lt. E

. g. , M ot
. at14 ( acc us i ng the D i s tr i ct C our tJ udge of “ di s r egar d[i ng] thi s C our t ’ s m andat e . . . i n or der t o agai n r eac h the s ame r es ul t [he] i nt ended a l l al ong— appr oval o f th e c las s a c tio n se ttl e m e n t”) ; i d. at16 ( acc us i ng the J udge of b e in g “ in telle c tu a llyd ish o n e st a n d d u p licito u s” ); see al so O b jectors’ B r. , N o . 0 8 -37 9 0 , a t 2 (req u esti n g that o u r C o u rt r emand t hi s cas e “t o a di ffe r entdi s tr i ctcourtunbur dened by hi d d en agendas ”)

. A ccor di ngl y , and notw i ths t andi ng our con cl usi on that the D i stri ctC ou rt err ed i n re- cert i fy i ng the clas s, w e den ythe O bject ors’ peti t i on for m and am us. 36di ffi cul tforthe C our tt o engage i n the r efl ect i on neede d t o exer ci s e i t s fi duci ary duty t o as s ur e that th e s e ttle m e n t p ro c e s s w a s p ro c e d u ra lly f a ir

. . . . W e b e li e v e it i s th e re sp o n sib ili tyo f c o u n se l, c o n sis ten t w ith th e ir o b lig a tio n s to th e ir c lien ts, to as s i s tt he di s tr i ctcourt s i n thei rd ifficu l tt as ks of m anagi ng o ften unw i el d[y ] cl as s act i ons by el i m i nat i ng unnece s s arym ot i ons , exer ci sing r es tr ai nti n fi l i ng obj ect i ons , and tr eat i ng o p p o sin g c o u n se l w ith th e c iv ili tyth a t sh o u ld charact eri ze at t orneyrel at i on s. 4 1 8 F .3 d a t 3 2 0 n .3 7
. 100 I V . C oncl usi on I n s um m ary , w e conc l ude the D i s tr i ctC our tappl i ed an in c o rre c t leg a l sta n d a rd , an d th u s a b u se d it s d isc re tio n , in d eterm ining that the n am ed p lai n ti ff s an d class c o u n se l are adequa t e r epr es ent at i ves forthe cl as s . I n addr es s i ng the a d e q u a c yre q u ire m e n ts o n re m a n d , the C o u rt sh o u ld in part i cul arcons i der , cons i s t entw i th the s t andar ds w e have d isc u ss e d , (1 ) w h e th e r a su b c las s o f c las s m e m b e rs w ith tim e ly R E SPA and/ orT I L A / H O E PA cl ai m s s houl d be cr eat ed; and ( 2) w hethercl ass coun sel are adequ at e repr esent at i ves fo r the clas s, an d /or an y su b classe s that m ay b e c rea ted, i n li g h t of co u n sel’s j us t i fi c a t i on s gi ve n forthe i rde c i s i on no tt o b r i ng TI LA / H O EPA c la im s o n b e h a lf

o f th e c la s s .