Source: http://thecomplexlitigator.com/post-data/tag/Settlements
Timestamp: 2019-04-19 05:00:34+00:00

Document:
In the last few years, California Courts of Appeal have examined the question of whether an putative class representative can voluntarily settle individual claims while "agreeing" with the defendant that the plaintiff would retain a right to appeal the denial of class certification. That examination hasn't gone well for plaintiffs: "The parties' intent cannot compel this court to issue an advisory opinion on issues in which, after the settlement, Larner no longer retains any individual, personal stake." Larner v. Los Angeles Doctors Hospital Associates, LP, 168 Cal. App. 4th 1291, 1298 (2008). However, the Larner Court suggested that, had Larner "reserved any right to shift attorney fees to other class members," she might have retained an interest in the litigation sufficient to support her right to appeal. Larner, at 1304.
After Larner, the trend continued, and with increasing momentum against plaintiffs. Watkins v. Wachovia Corp., 172 Cal. App. 4th 1576 (2009) actually criticized Larner: "We believe that it is illogical to import the law governing 'pick off' cases into the context of a voluntary settlement." Watkins, at 1591. Watkins bluntly declared, "There are no public policy interests implicated by a settlement voluntarily accepted." Watkins, at 1591.
The Supreme Court held in Geraghty that when a class representative’s claims expire involuntarily, that representative “retains a ‘personal stake’ in obtaining class certification sufficient” to maintain jurisdiction to appeal a denial of class certification. Id. at 404. The Court reasoned that the class representative maintained at least an interest in spreading litigation costs and shifting fees and expenses to the other litigants with similar claims. Id. at 403; see also Deposit Guar. Nat’l Bank, Jackson Miss. v. Roper, 445 U.S. 326, 334 n.6 (1980).
We hold that when a class representative voluntarily settles his or her individual claims, but specifically retains a personal stake as identified by Geraghty and Roper, he or she retains jurisdiction to appeal the denial of class certification. In so holding, we join several other circuits. See Richards v. Delta Air Lines, Inc., 453 F.3d 525 (D.C. Cir. 2006); Potter v. Norwest Mortgage, Inc., 329 F.3d 608 (8th Cir. 2003); Toms v. Allied Bond & Collection Agency, Inc., 179 F.3d 103 (4th Cir. 1999); Love v. Turlington, 733 F.2d 1562 (11th Cir. 1984).
Slip op. at 1175. The Court then emphasized that "a class representative cannot release any and all interests he or she may have had in class representation through a private settlement agreement" and still assert the existence of a "personal stake" in the litigation. Slip op. at 1175.
The Court then briefly criticized the District Court's failure to create a proper record for review when it refused to certify the proposed class for settlement purposes: "It is clear here that the district court erred in denying class certification without providing any findings or providing any analysis of the Rule 23 factors." Slip op., at 1179. The Court succinctly said, "Meaningful appellate review is impossible." Slip op., at 1179.
There was also a spirited exchange between District Judge Korman (Senior United States District Judge for the Eastern District of New York, sitting by designation), who concurred in the decision, and Circuit Judge Rymer, who dissented.
A Petition for Review was denied in Messenger Courier Association of the Americas, et al. v. California Unemployment Insurance Appeals Board. See this blog's prior post on this matter here.
A Petition for Review was denied in Ali v. U.S.A. Cab. The interesting texture to this denial is that (1) I argued the appeal so I didn't cover this decision on this blog, and (2) aspects of Ali's construction of the Borello opinion are contrary to language in Messenger Courier, but both originate in the Fourth Appellate District, Division One.
A Depublication Request was denied in Clark v. American Residential Services LLC, et al. See this blog's prior post on this matter here.

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