Opinion ID: 503451
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: Order Number 79

Text: 13 On October 17, 1986, class plaintiffs moved for a preliminary injunction 10 prohibiting appellants from sending the SBA booklet to any class member and from otherwise directly or indirectly communicating with any class member outside the normal course of business without prior Court approval. 11 Jt.App. at 12. Following discovery, an evidentiary hearing was held on November 10, 1986. Id. at 255. The district court ruled on plaintiffs' motion by entering a pretrial order (Order No. 79) on February 5, 1987. In re Asbestos School Litig., 115 F.R.D. at 26. Order No. 79 provides that 14 the SBA when communicating about school asbestos matters in any manner with any party known to be a class member herein, any association of known class members herein, or any group of persons known or reasonably believed to include a person who is or represents a class member or class members herein must prominently display the information contained in Appendix A attached to this order. 12 15 In re Asbestos School Litig., 115 F.R.D. at 26. Appendix A is a five-paragraph NOTICE that identifies the member companies of the SBA, notes that those member companies principally fund the SBA, states that those companies are defendants in the underlying class action and that all public and private, elementary and secondary schools are plaintiffs in the litigation, and gives the names, addresses and telephone numbers of lead counsel for the plaintiff class. 13 Id. Order No. 79 is accompanied by an opinion setting forth the district court's findings of fact and conclusions of law supporting the order. Id. at 23-26. 16 The corporate-defendant-appellants and the SBA filed separate appeals from Order No. 79 on February 12, 1987, and March 2, 1987, respectively. On March 4, 1987, the district court denied a motion to stay the order pending appeal. The next day, class plaintiffs moved to dismiss the appeals, arguing that this Court lacks jurisdiction to review the order. On March 20, 1987, we granted appellants' subsequent motion to stay the order, and we referred the jurisdictional question to this merits panel.