Opinion ID: 2639418
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 4

Heading: bar order litigation

Text: ¶ 10 In early to mid-1994, Jones Waldo learned that Bennett intended to sue Jones Waldo on behalf of the entire class for alleged legal malpractice because he thought the settlement was unfair and improper. Suspecting that Bennett's claims of malpractice were nothing more than a collateral attack on the fairness and adequacy of the class action settlement, Jones Waldo requested that Post Kirby obtain a court order (bar order) from the California federal district court prohibiting litigation collaterally attacking the finality of the class action settlement. [2] ¶ 11 On July 5, 1994, the California federal district court issued a temporary bar order that was made permanent on October 3, 1994, after a hearing on the issue on September 6, 1994. Bennett was served in Utah with a copy of the temporary bar order which permitted him to oppose any permanent bar order in California. Bennett was present and represented by counsel at the September 6 hearing. ¶ 12 The bar order restrained Bennett from initiating or maintaining any lawsuit against [Jones Waldo] ... or any other class counsel which in any way involves the sufficiency or fairness of the class action settlement, the competency of class counsel and counsel's legal services on behalf of the class, the award of fees and costs to class counsel, and the award of additional compensation to any of the named Plaintiffs in the class action. The bar order expressly did not bar or restrain David D. Bennett from pursuing solely his own individual claims as a former Gen-Probe shareholder, except to the extent such claims have been previously adjudicated by this court. ¶ 13 Bennett appealed the bar order to the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals. While that appeal was pending, Bennett filed the instant action in Utah district court against Jones Waldo (but not against Post Kirby) on December 30, 1994. [3] Soon thereafter, on January 20, 1995, Bennett filed an amended complaint. ¶ 14 When Bennett filed his amended complaint, Jones Waldo, represented by Post Kirby, moved the California federal district court to hold Bennett in contempt of the bar order. At a hearing on the contempt motion on May 1, 1995, the California federal district court, after reviewing Bennett's complaint and the amended complaint filed in Utah district court, ordered Bennett to redact all of the allegations relating to the class action settlement and the competency of class counsel's representation of the class. Bennett agreed to file a second amended complaint, which he did on August 1, 1995. ¶ 15 In response to Bennett's second amended complaint, Jones Waldo again asked Post Kirby to move the California federal district court to hold Bennett in contempt of the bar order because the allegations in the second amended complaint continued to focus impermissibly on the adequacy and fairness of the class action settlement and class counsel's representation of the class, essentially collaterally attacking the finality of the class action settlement. The California federal district court held a hearing on the second contempt motion on January 11, 1996. At this hearing, the California federal district court held Bennett in contempt of the bar order. The court fined Bennett and once again ordered him to amend his complaint to eliminate claims concerning the class action settlement and the competency of class counsel. Bennett appealed this contempt citation to the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals. On February 9, 1996, Bennett filed in Utah district court his third amended complaint, omitting under protest the offending allegations. ¶ 16 On June 14, 1996, the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals affirmed the original issuance of the bar order. In doing so, the Ninth Circuit narrowly construed the bar order so that the Utah court may examine the adequacy of the class settlement, but only insofar as that settlement sheds light on [Jones Waldo's] representation of Bennett. On June 19, 1997, the Ninth Circuit reversed the contempt citation pursuant to the narrow construction of the bar order.