Binta B. Ex Rel. S.A. v. Gordon

How courts have described this case

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

• holding that district court did not err in continuing class certification because defendant had offered no evidence of the purported inadequacy of a challenged class representative
• concluding that Buckhannon does not go so far as to prohibit fees for any postde-cree work that does not result in a change to the parties’ legal relationship, but it must be “accordfed] ... some weight in the post-decree context”
• reasoning that a “district court’s responsibilities with respect to Rule 23(a) do not end once the class is certified”
• stating that prevailing party fees are appropriate when a plaintiff takes certain actions to “defend or enforce a prior consent decree” (emphasis added)
• stating that statutory prevailing plaintiffs are sometimes entitled to compensation for post-judgment work like defending a consent decree
• concluding that Buckhannon does not go so far as to prohibit fees for any postdecree work that does not result in a change to the parties’ legal relationship, but it must be “accord[ed] . . . some weight in the post-decree context”

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).