Federal Case

How courts have described this case

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

• holding that a district court’s power to manage a class action included the power to prohibit a defendant from making “unsupervised, unilateral communications with the plaintiff class”
• concluding that the litigants’ settlement agreement mooted the issue of compensatory sanctions but did not moot the issue of punitive sanctions
• stating that the court “possesses the inherent power to discipline counsel for misconduct, short of behavior giving rise to disbarment or criminal censure, without resort to the powers of civil or criminal contempt”
• recognizing district court's authority to police Rule 23 class member contacts and to prohibit the defendant from engaging in unsupervised, unilateral communications with the plaintiff class members to solicit opt-out forms from those class members
• upholding a $50,000 fine against counsel for intentional misconduct imposed by district court under its inherent power to sanction attorneys practicing before it
• “Unsupervised, unilateral communications with the plaintiff class sabotage the goal of informed consent by urging exclusion on the basis of a one-sided presentation of the facts, without opportunity for rebuttal.”

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).