Follow POL on Twitter Yesterday the Center for Class Action Fairness filed the opening brief in the appeal of the In re Yahoo! settlement approval. We make a process argument--the district court gave no reasoning for its decision, which by itself requires remand--but we also argue the substantive issue that no court could reasonably approve a $0-for-the-class/$4.3 million-for-the-attorneys settlement. Don't miss pp. 39-43, where we cite Seinfeld. (The Center is not affiliated with the Manhattan Institute.)
CCAF Ninth Circuit appeal - In re Yahoo!
Related Entries:
- Sixth Circuit brief in Pampers Dry Max class action
- Behind the paywall
- "A Public Letter From the Cobell Lawyers Prompts Ethics and Harassment Concerns"
- Around the web, January 27
- McClintic v. Lithia Motors
- Capriccioso on Cobell appeal
- "Missouri lawyers weigh in on class action concerns"
- DC Circuit briefing in Cobell v. Salazar complete
- CCAF Second Circuit brief in Blessing v. Sirius XM Radio, Inc.
- Courts still ignoring cy pres requirements
- Responding to Professor Fitzpatrick on class action fees
- Federal district court dismisses Netflix suit
- Hans Bader on challenging class-action abuses
- Wherein CCAF is "justly lauded"
- Debating attorneys' fees in class actions
 |
| Isaac Gorodetski Project Manager, Center for Legal Policy at the Manhattan Institute igorodetski@manhattan-institute.org |
 |
| Bridget Carroll Press Officer, Manhattan Institute bcarroll@manhattan-institute.org |
