Finally, the original rule did not squarely address itself to the question of the measures that might be taken during the course of the action to assure procedural fairness, particularly giving notice to members of the class, which may in turn be related in some instances to the extension of the judgment to the class. Cauble , 255 U. The court might direct, for example, that class members who elect exclusion are bound by rulings on the merits made before the settlement was proposed for approval.
The parties should also supply the court with information about the likely range of litigated outcomes, and about the risks that might attend full litigation. In conducting an action under this rule, the court may issue orders that:. Subdivision e 2 requires parties seeking approval of a settlement, voluntary dismissal, or compromise under Rule 23 e 1 to file a statement identifying any agreement made in connection with the settlement. An action against a former officer or employee of the United States is covered by this provision in the same way as an action against a present officer or employee.
It should be based on a solid record supporting the conclusion that the proposed settlement will likely earn final approval after notice and an opportunity to object. We noticed that your account's country setting is set to Canada, but you're viewing the U. Bush , 242 F. In this connection the court should inform itself of any litigation actually pending by or against the individuals. Some CPE is required as a pre-requisite.
Paragraph 1. Kinnicutt , 248 Fed. It concerned [former] Equity Rule 27, as Federal Rule 23 was not then in effect. See discussion of subdivision c 1 below. If the motion provides thorough information, the burden should be on the objector to justify discovery to obtain further information.
Although many circumstances may justify deferring the certification decision, active management may be necessary to ensure that the certification decision is not unjustifiably delayed. The judgment has this scope whether it is favorable or unfavorable to the class.
Yet several concerns justify expansion of present opportunities to appeal. Some agreements may include information that merits protection against general disclosure.
Here representation of subclasses of exhibitors could become necessary; see subdivision c 3 B. Whether the court should require notice to be given to members of the class of its intention to make a determination, or of the order embodying it, is left to the court's discretion under subdivision d 2. Paragraph 2. The rule is also amended to clarify that objections must provide sufficient specifics to enable the parties to respond to them and the court to evaluate them.
In the situations to which this subdivision relates, class-action treatment is not as clearly called for as in those described above, but it may nevertheless be convenient and desirable depending upon the particular facts. The interests of individuals in conducting separate lawsuits may be so strong as to call for denial of a class action.