CONTACT ME


  • Kimberly A. Kralowec
    The Kralowec Law Group
    180 Montgomery Street,
    Suite 2000
    San Francisco, CA 94104
    Tel: (415) 546-6800
    Fax: (415) 546-6801
    Web: www.kraloweclaw.com
    Email: uclpractitioner@gmail.com

August 2014

Sun Mon Tue Wed Thu Fri Sat
          1 2
3 4 5 6 7 8 9
10 11 12 13 14 15 16
17 18 19 20 21 22 23
24 25 26 27 28 29 30
31            

« Supreme Court grants review in UCL case: Amalgamated Transit Union v. Superior Court | Main | New Ninth Circuit UCL preemption decision: Burnside v. Kiewit Pacific Corp. »

Friday, June 22, 2007

TrackBack

TrackBack URL for this entry:
http://www.typepad.com/services/trackback/6a00d8345172b069e200d83548594b53ef

Listed below are links to weblogs that reference "Managing Class Action Litigation: A Pocket Guide for Judges":

Comments

Frank Conway

Interesting comment at p. 6 of the 2005 “Managing Class Action Litigation: A Pocket Guide for Judges” which states, “the most important actions you can take to promote settlement are to rule on dispositive motions and then, if necessary, rule on class certification.” (p.6) What about the rule against one-way intervention which, in any case involving class certification under Rule 23(b)(3), requires that the class members receive notice of the suit “well before the merits of [it] are adjudicated”? See Schwarzschild v. Tse, 69 F.3d 293, 295 (9th Cir. 1995) (“[D]istrict courts generally do not grant summary judgment on the merits of a class action until the class has been properly certified and notified. The purpose of Rule 23(c)(2) is to ensure that the plaintiff class receives notice of the action well before the merits of the case are adjudicated. [Citations] As the Third Circuit has noted, the history of the development of Rule 23(c)(2) makes clear that the rule was adopted to prevent "one-way intervention" — that is, the intervention of a plaintiff in a class action after an adjudication favoring the class had taken place. Such intervention is termed "one way" because the plaintiff would not otherwise be bound by an adjudication in favor of the defendant.”)

The comments to this entry are closed.

2014 Supreme Court Calendar


Research


Disclaimer


  • Nothing in this blog constitutes legal advice. If you need legal advice, consult an attorney in your jurisdiction. To read this blog's complete disclaimer, click here.


  • The UCL Practitioner
    © 2003-2014
    by Kimberly A. Kralowec
    All rights reserved.


  • Enter your email address:

    Delivered by FeedBurner




  • Header design by Webmotion
    Photos by Jack Gescheidt
    Powered by TypePad