Anytime Fitness v. Thornhill Brothers

Oral argument

• Argued

  34 min recording
  Listen

Source: CourtListener oral-argument corpus (CC0).

How courts have described this case

Verbatim parenthetical descriptions written by other courts when citing this decision. Ranked by citation-network relevance.

• stressing that “[t]he purpose of Rule 23(e) is to protect the unnamed members of the class,” and that a “district court acts as a fiduciary” for absent class members
• noting that the presumption in favor of voluntary settlement agreements is “especially strong” in complex cases
• holding that a settlement agreement executed by the named plaintiffs and defendant, but not yet court approved on a class-wide basis, still bound the present parties when the defendant moved the court to vacate its order granting preliminary approval of the settlement
• describing the district court’s role and explaining that the court in that case “never considered whether to approve the settlement”
• stating that, “[w]here . . . the parties have executed an agreement, a party cannot avoid its independent contractual obligations simply because a change in the law confers upon it a benefit” after the parties executed the agreement
• stating that, “[w]here . . . the parties have executed an agreement, a party cannot avoid its independent contractual obligations simply because a change in the law confers upon it a benefit” after the parties executed the agreement

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).