Follow POL on Twitter We've been discussing the unreasonable Dewey v. Volkswagen class action settlement for some time here: June 2010; July 2010; October 2010; August 2011; February 2012; February 2012; March 2012. Today, the Third Circuit reversed the settlement approval, another victory for the Center for Class Action Fairness. The decision is not an optimal opinion, as it is heavily fact-specific and avoids the opportunity to create useful precedent to make future settlements and fairness hearings more efficient, but a good result for this particular class that had been treated unfairly is still a good result—especially since the settling parties had asked for the recent Sullivan v. DB Investments decision to be extended to preclude any consideration of intra-class conflicts.
A win in Dewey v. Volkswagen
Related Entries:
- Robert F. Booth Trust v. Crowley oral argument
- Cobell v. Salazar (D.C. Cir. 2012)
- Nutella class action settlement far worse than being reported
- Around the web, May 7
- Evading CAFA's scrutiny of coupons: In re Online DVD Rental
- Fox Business on class action settlements
- Gallucci v. Boiron
- Cy pres in the appellate courts: In re Lupron and In re Baby Products
- Settlements in Kansas "hot fuel" litigation MDL
- $7M for attorneys, $0.5M for class
- Prospective injunctive relief class actions and McNair v. Synapse Group Inc.
- Apple iPhone 4 bumper class action settlement
- Third Circuit argument in Dewey v. Volkswagen
- Dewey v. Volkswagen oral argument tomorrow
 |
| Isaac Gorodetski Project Manager, Center for Legal Policy at the Manhattan Institute igorodetski@manhattan-institute.org |
 |
| Laura Eyi Press Officer, Manhattan Institute leyi@manhattan-institute.org |
Leave a comment
Once submitted, the comment will first be reviewed by our editors and is not guaranteed to be published. Point of Law editors reserve the right to edit, delete, move, or mark as spam any and all comments. They also have the right to block access to any one or group from commenting or from the entire blog. A comment which does not add to the conversation, runs of on an inappropriate tangent, or kills the conversation may be edited, moved, or deleted.
The views and opinions of those providing comments are those of the author of the comment alone, and even if allowed onto the site do not reflect the opinions of Point of Law bloggers or the Manhattan Institute for Policy Research or any employee thereof. Comments submitted to Point of Law are the sole responsibility of their authors, and the author will take full responsibility for the comment, including any asserted liability for defamation or any other cause of action, and neither the Manhattan Institute nor its insurance carriers will assume responsibility for the comment merely because the Institute has provided the forum for its posting.