In Re Community Bank of Northern Virginia

How courts have described this case

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

• noting that where, as in this case, the intervenors are a class members and have the same objective as the parties to the suit, there is a presumption of adequate representation
• remanding case to district court for “closer scrutiny” of proposed settlement, where record showed that class counsel failed to assert what appeared to be facially viable claims, conducted no formal discovery, and negotiated an extremely generous fee
• “[T]he complete preemption doctrine is an ‘independent corollary’ to the well-pleaded complaint rule.” (quoting Caterpillar, Inc., 482 U.S. at 393)
• in determining whether Sixth Amendment error occurred, the sentence imposed must be compared to the permissible guideline range before adjusting for acceptance of responsibility
• “[I]f the District Court were to find [on remand] that class certification is appropriate, the Court should determine whether sub-classes are necessary or appropriate . . . .”
• “[A] predominance analysis is similar to the requirement of Rule 23(a)(3) that claims or defenses of the named representative must be ‘typical of the claims [or] defenses of the class.’ ”

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).