Featured Chrome Extensions:

Casey IRACs are produced by an AI that analyzes the opinion’s content to construct its analysis. While we strive for accuracy, the output may not be flawless. For a complete and precise understanding, please refer to the linked opinions above.

Keywords

settlementplaintifflitigationinjunctionappealclass action
lawsuitplaintifflitigationinjunctionappealwill

Related Cases

Libertarian Party of Ohio v. Husted, 751 F.3d 403
View Case »
Seidel v. Public Service Co. of New Hampshire, 616 F.Supp. 1342, Fed. Sec. L. Rep. P 92,383
View Case »
U.S. v. Adlman, 134 F.3d 1194, 81 A.F.T.R.2d 98-820, 98-1 USTC P 50,230, 39 Fed.R.Serv.3d 1189
View Case »
In re Roots’ Estate, 596 S.W.2d 240
View Case »
Republican Party of Minnesota v. White, 536 U.S. 765, 122 S.Ct. 2528, 153 L.Ed.2d 694, 70 USLW 4720, 02 Cal. Daily Op. Serv. 5776, 2002 Daily Journal D.A.R. 7259, 15 Fla. L. Weekly Fed. S 518
View Case »
Justia Law Link
LexisNexis Link
Westlaw Link
CourtListener Link
Oyez Link

Georgine v. Amchem Products, Inc., 83 F.3d 610, 64 USLW 2711, 34 Fed.R.Serv.3d 407, 26 Envtl. L. Rep. 21,138

Facts

The case arose from a class action involving between 250,000 and 2,000,000 individuals exposed to asbestos products. The settlement aimed to extinguish future claims of individuals who currently had no physical ailments but might develop asbestos-related diseases. The class action was initiated after extensive negotiations between class counsel and CCR, culminating in a stipulation of settlement that included various compensation criteria for claimants.

This case arises against the background of an asbestos litigation crisis: [This] is a tale of danger known in the 1930s, exposure inflicted upon millions of Americans in the 1940s and 1950s, injuries that began to take their toll in the 1960s, and a flood of lawsuits beginning in the 1970s.

Issue

Did the district court err in certifying the class and issuing a preliminary injunction against class members pursuing claims in other courts?

Did the district court err in certifying the class and issuing a preliminary injunction against class members pursuing claims in other courts?

Rule

To obtain class certification, plaintiffs must satisfy all requirements of Rule 23(a) and meet one provision of Rule 23(b). Specifically, Rule 23(a) requires numerosity, commonality, typicality, and adequacy of representation, while Rule 23(b)(3) requires predominance and superiority.

To obtain class certification, plaintiffs must satisfy all of the requirements of Rule 23(a) and come within one provision of Rule 23(b).

Analysis

The court determined that the class did not meet the Rule 23(a) requirements of typicality and adequacy of representation, nor the Rule 23(b) requirements of predominance and superiority. The claims raised by individual plaintiffs were found to be too diverse and factually distinct, leading to conflicts of interest and making it impractical to manage the class as a litigation class.

We conclude that this class meets neither the 23(a) requirements of typicality and adequacy of representation, nor the 23(b)(3) requirements of predominance and superiority.

Conclusion

The Court of Appeals vacated the district court's order certifying the plaintiff class and remanded with directions to decertify the class and vacate the injunction.

For the reasons we have preliminarily outlined, and which we will now explain in depth, we will vacate the district court's order certifying the plaintiff class and remand with directions to decertify the class and vacate the injunction.

Who won?

The objectors prevailed in the appeal as the Court of Appeals found that the class did not meet the necessary certification requirements, leading to the decertification of the class.

The objectors prevailed in the appeal as the Court of Appeals found that the class did not meet the necessary certification requirements, leading to the decertification of the class.

You must be