Contributors
813.229.4304
407.244.8235
813.229.4301
202.965.8181
813.229.4362
305.347.6823
305.347.6990
860.392.5038
305.539.7309
561.650.0354
561.822.2972
561.650.8014
305.539.7230
202.295.6525
212.380.9612
305.539.7330
860.392.5053
202.965.8129
202.965.8126
202.965.8107

Fifth Circuit


August 16, 2012 4:02 PM | Posted by Tinsley, Katie | Permalink
Class certification denied where fact finder would have to engage in a file-by-file review based on Texas title insurance company's ad hoc policy to determine whether putative class members qualified for a mandatory title insurance premium discount. read more
March 2, 2012 4:02 PM | Posted by Tinsley, Katie | Permalink
In an unpublished opinion, the Fifth Circuit declined to consider a plaintiff’s request for class certification pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23 finding that the complaint's allegations failed to merit such status and because “dismissal of Plaintiff’s complaint on its merits mooted any request for class certification.”  Conditt v. Owens, No. 11-50426, slip. op. 2012 WL 29128, at *2 (5th Cir. Jan. 6, 2012).  Therefore, the court denied Plaintiff’s motion on appeal for class certification.  Id. read more
February 29, 2012 11:45 AM | Posted by Tinsley, Katie | Permalink

Two Settlement Class Member objectors appealed the approval of a proposed settlement agreement creating a $40 million settlement fund to be allocated among class members and their attorneys.  Union Asset Mgmt Holding A.G. v. Dell, Inc., --- F.3d ----, 2012 WL 375249, *1 (5th Cir., Feb. 7, 2012).   The class representatives allege that Defendant Dell and its officers, “violated the Securities Exchange Act  . . . by fraudulently inflating reported revenues, engaging in erroneous accounting, and disseminating false information to the public.”  Id.   The two objectors assert, inter alia, that the “court erred in using the percentage method to calculate class counsel’s fees.”  Id.

read more