Source: https://masseygail.com/experience/experience-class-actions.php
Timestamp: 2019-04-20 19:07:33+00:00

Document:
The leading Supreme Court case addressing the permissibility under Rule 23 of “settlement only” class actions. Amchem Products, Inc. v. Windsor, 521 U.S. 591 (1997); Georgine v. Amchem Products, Inc., 83 F.3d 610 (3d Cir. 1996). See 1996 WL 33413285, 1997 WL 13208, 1995 WL 17013729, 1995 WL 17013731 (briefs) (U.S. Supreme Court and U.S. Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit).
The Attorney General of Mississippi in a case presenting the question whether a state's parens patriae action is removable as a “mass action” under the Class Action Fairness Act when the state is the sole plaintiff, the claims arise under state law, and the state attorney general possesses statutory and common-law authority to assert all claims in the complaint. Mississippi ex rel Hood v. AU Optronics Corp., 134 S. Ct. 736 (2014). See 2013 WL 3894136, 2013 WL 5532272 (briefs) (U.S. Supreme Court).A putative class of consumers in a case presenting the question whether, after Smith v. Bayer Corp., 131 S. Ct. 2368 (2011), when a named plaintiff attempts to defeat a defendant’s right of removal under the Class Action Fairness Act of 2005 by filing with a class action complaint a “stipulation” that attempts to limit the damages he “seeks” for the absent putative class members to less than the $5 million threshold for federal jurisdiction, and the defendant establishes that the actual amount in controversy, absent the “stipulation,” exceeds $5 million, the “stipulation” is binding on absent class members so as to destroy federal jurisdiction. The Standard Fire Insurance Co. v. Knowles, No. 11-1450 (U.S. Supreme Court).
The leading Supreme Court case involving the permissibility under Rule 23 of “settlement only” class actions in the limited fund context. Ortiz v. Fibreboard Corp., 521 U.S., 1114 (1997), 527 U.S. 815 (1999). See 1997 WL 33557244, 1997 WL 33557148, 1998 WL 727536, 1998 WL 464933 (briefs) (U.S. Supreme Court and U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit).
A leading medical device manufacturer in connection with advice, briefing, and litigation analysis regarding class certification requirements in product liability actions in state and federal court.
A group of amici medical researchers in a class action against a pharmaceutical company and three of its executives, alleging that defendants violated federal securities laws by failing to disclose material information regarding one of the company’s products. Matrixx Initiatives, Inc. v. Siracusano, 131 S.Ct. 1309 (2011).
A group of foreign agricultural workers in a case presenting product liability claims for injuries and damages allegedly caused by exposure to the pesticide dibromo chloropropane (“DBCP”). Chaverri v. Dole Food Co., Inc., --- F.Supp.2d ---, 2012 WL 4097216 (E.D.La., Sept. 17, 2012).
A case presenting the question whether and when an absent class member is forbidden from instituting a collateral challenge that would establish that the class action judgment is not binding because it was not consistent with the requirements of due process. Clark v. Wyeth, Inc., 548 U.S. 940 (2006). See 2006 WL 502012 (brief) (U.S. Supreme Court).
A case presenting the question whether the federal court that approved a class action settlement is permitted to regulate ongoing state trial court proceedings by requiring the parties to those proceedings to stipulate to a reverse bifurcation procedure. Smart v. Wyeth, 546 U.S. 818 (2005), 123 Fed. Appx. 465 (3d Cir. 2005). See 2005 WL 1248658, 2004 WL 5027195 (briefs) (U.S. Supreme Court and U.S. Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit).
A group of appeals involving the lawfulness of an amendment to the diet drug settlement. In re Diet Drugs (Phentermine/Fenfluramine/Dexfenfluramine) Products Liability Litigation, 385 F.3d 386 (3d Cir. 2004).
A group of appeals involving the lawfulness of a district court order suspending claims-processing deadline in a class action settlement. In re Diet Drugs (Phentermine/Fenfluramine/Dexfenfluramine) Products Liability Litigation, 90 Fed. Appx. 643 (3d Cir. 2005).
A case involving the ability of absent class members in a settlement class action to mount a collateral challenge to the settlement on the ground that they were denied adequate representation. In re Diet Drugs Phentermine/Fenfluramine/Dexfenfluramine) Products Liability Litig., 431 F.3d 141 (3d Cir. 2005). See 2004 WL 4986284, 2004 WL 4986281 (briefs) (U.S. Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit).
A case involving the ability of absent class members in a nationwide settlement to bring collateral challenges in their local courts. State v. Homeside Lending, Inc., 826 A.2d 997 (Vt. 2003).
A group of shareholders in a class action settlement arising out of the purchase of a public company by Google, Inc. Jiannaras v. Alfant, Index No. 21262/09 (N.Y. Sup. Ct).

References: v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v.