Court Opinion

ID: 9490872
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-05 13:57:19.664524+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:54:22.198037
License: Public Domain

MERRITT, Circuit Judge,
concurring in part and dissenting in part.
I agree with two conclusions found in Judge Nelson’s opinion for the en banc court: (1) that District Judge Feikens was correct in declining to certify the 34,000 general retirees as a class because they were on notice that General Motors could always modify their health benefits, even after retirement; and (2) that there are too many differences in the various contractual arrangements and representations made to individual early retirees to merit class certification and unified treatment. I do not agree, however, that the actions of the named plaintiffs who were early retirees should be dismissed. I agree with that portion of Chief Judge Martin’s dissenting opinion that calls for a remand of this portion of the case to the District- Court for consideration of the individual eases of the named plaintiffs on the merits. It appears that at least some of the early retirees had,vested lifetime benefits at the time of retirement unencumbered by any reservation by GM that it retained the right to modify. These named plaintiffs should not be summarily thrown out of court merely because the class actions fail.