Amchem Products, Inc. v. Windsor case brief summary
521 U.S. 591 (1997)
CASE FACTS
This case concerned the legitimacy under Fed. R. Civ. P. 23 of a class-action certification sought to achieve a global settlement of current and future asbestos-related claims. The class proposed for certification potentially encompassed individuals adversely affected by past exposure to asbestos products manufactured by one or more of 20 companies. Those companies--defendants in the lower courts--were petitioners in the case at bar. The district court certified the class for settlement only; however, the appellate court vacated the district court's order holding that the class certification failed to meet the requirements under Rule 23.
DISCUSSION
On appeal, the Court held that the class failed to satisfy the predominance standard and that the class approved by the district court failed to satisfy the requirement that the named parties would fairly and adequately protect the interests of the class.
CONCLUSION
The court affirmed the judgment of the appellate court denying class certification because the class did not satisfy the requirements of common issue predominance and adequacy of representation.
Recommended Supplements for Civil Procedure
521 U.S. 591 (1997)
CASE SYNOPSIS
Petitioners sought review of a judgment
from the United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit holding
that the class certification failed to satisfy the requirements
of Fed. R. Civ. P. 23.CASE FACTS
This case concerned the legitimacy under Fed. R. Civ. P. 23 of a class-action certification sought to achieve a global settlement of current and future asbestos-related claims. The class proposed for certification potentially encompassed individuals adversely affected by past exposure to asbestos products manufactured by one or more of 20 companies. Those companies--defendants in the lower courts--were petitioners in the case at bar. The district court certified the class for settlement only; however, the appellate court vacated the district court's order holding that the class certification failed to meet the requirements under Rule 23.
DISCUSSION
On appeal, the Court held that the class failed to satisfy the predominance standard and that the class approved by the district court failed to satisfy the requirement that the named parties would fairly and adequately protect the interests of the class.
CONCLUSION
The court affirmed the judgment of the appellate court denying class certification because the class did not satisfy the requirements of common issue predominance and adequacy of representation.
Recommended Supplements for Civil Procedure
No comments:
Post a Comment