EFTA01372143Dataset 10
1p560w
…Litig. ("AremisSoft"), 210 F.R.D. 109, 128 (D.N.J. 2002). The Third Circuit has established two methods for evaluating an award of attorneys' fees: the percentage-of-recovery method, which involves giving attorneys a portion of the total damages awarded to plaintiffs, and the lodestar method, which involves multiplying the number of hours reasonably worked on a case by the reasonable billing rate for the services. Prudential, 148 F.3d at 333; In re Ins. Brokerage Antitrust Litig…
https://www.justice.gov/epstein/files/DataSet%2010/EFTA01372143.pdf
EFTA00145643Dataset 9
2023-11-0223p6,343w
…Supp. 2d 337, 344-45 (S.D.N.Y.2008) (approving settlement where 13 out of 3,500 class members objected and 3 opted out, noting that "[t]he fact that the vast majority of class members neither objected nor opted out is a strong indication" of fairness); In re Citigroup Inc. Sec. Litig., 965 F. Supp. 2d 369, 382 (S.D.N.Y. 2013) ("A favorable reception by the class constitutes `strong evidence' that a proposed settlement is fair…
https://www.justice.gov/epstein/files/DataSet%209/EFTA00145643.pdf
EFTA01371358Dataset 10
1p583w
…laws." Id. at 24. The Court finds that these common questions of law or fact predominate over any questions affecting only individual class members. The Rule 23(b)(3) superiority requirement "asks the court to balance, in terms of fairness and efficiency, the merits of a class action against those of alternative available methods of adjudication." In re Warfarin Sodium Antitrust Litig. (Warfarin Sodium"), 391 F.3d 516, 533-34 (3d Cir. 2004) (citations and quotations omitted). The Court looks…
https://www.justice.gov/epstein/files/DataSet%2010/EFTA01371358.pdf
EFTA01372133Dataset 10
1p583w
…laws." Id. at 24. The Court finds that these common questions of law or fact predominate over any questions affecting only individual class members. The Rule 23(b)(3) superiority requirement "asks the court to balance, in terms of fairness and efficiency, the merits of a class action against those of alternative available methods of adjudication." In re Warfarin Sodium Antitrust Litig. (Warfarin Sodium"), 391 F.3d 516, 533-34 (3d Cir. 2004) (citations and quotations omitted). The Court looks…
https://www.justice.gov/epstein/files/DataSet%2010/EFTA01372133.pdf
EFTA01372134Dataset 10
2013-10-081p525w
…and the reasonability of any provisions for attorneys' [125] fees. In re Prudential Ins. Co. Am. Sales Prac. Litig. Agent Actions ("Prudential"), 148 F.3d 283, 323 (3d Cir. 1998). The "Prudential considerations are just that, prudential." In re Baby Products Antitrust Litig. ("Baby Products), 708 F.3d 163, 174 (3d Cir. 2013). Finally, the Third Circuit has guided that an important consideration is "the degree of direct benefit provided to the class," including "the size of the individual awards…
https://www.justice.gov/epstein/files/DataSet%2010/EFTA01372134.pdf
EFTA01372140Dataset 10
2012-08-091p554w
…establishing liability and damages The fourth and fifth Girth factors require the Court to balance the Parties' relative likelihood of success in establishing liability and damages against the immediate benefits derived from a settlement. See Prudential, 148 F.3d at 319. The Court weighs these factors against the best and worst possible outcomes for Plaintiffs. In re Cendant Corp. Litig., 264 F.3d 201, 237-39 (3d Cir. 2001). Although Plaintiffs survived an initial motion to dismiss, see ECF No…
https://www.justice.gov/epstein/files/DataSet%2010/EFTA01372140.pdf
EFTA01386030Dataset 10
2000-06-151p940w
…therefore, I will dismiss them. I shall, however, grant the plaintiffs thirty days within which to amend the complaint to comport with Rule 9(b).3 See In re Burlington Coat Factory Sec. Litig.. 114 F.3d at 1434 (noting that ordinarily, when a complaint is dismissed under Rule 9(b) for failure to plead fraud with the requisite particularity, leave to amend the complaint is granted). III. CONCLUSION For the foregoing reasons, I will deny Citibank's and Citigroup…
https://www.justice.gov/epstein/files/DataSet%2010/EFTA01386030.pdf
EFTA00024875Dataset 8
2020-07-234p845w
… (See dkt. no. 1078.) Ms. Maxwell's eleventh-hour request for reconsideration is denied. As Ms. Maxwell acknowledges in her letter, reconsideration is an "extraordinary remedy." In re Beacon Assocs. Litig., 818 F. Supp. 2d 697, 701 (S.D.N.Y. 2011) (quoting In re Health Mgmt. Sys. Inc. Sec. Litig., 113 F. Supp. 2d 613, 614 (S.D.N.Y. 2000)). Such motions "are properly granted only if there is a showing of: (1) an intervening change in controlling…
https://www.justice.gov/epstein/files/DataSet%208/EFTA00024875.pdf
EFTA00018294Dataset 8
2020-07-234p844w
… (See dkt. no. 1078.) Ms. Maxwell's eleventh-hour request for reconsideration is denied. As Ms. Maxwell acknowledges in her letter, reconsideration is an "extraordinary remedy." In re Beacon Assocs. Litig., 818 F. Supp. 2d 697, 701 (S.D.N.Y. 2011) (quoting In re Health Mgmt. Sys. Inc. Sec. Litig., 113 F. Supp. 2d 613, 614 (S.D.N.Y. 2000)). Such motions "are properly granted only if there is a showing of: (1) an intervening change in controlling…
https://www.justice.gov/epstein/files/DataSet%208/EFTA00018294.pdf
EFTA00037109Dataset 8
2023-06-229p2,664w
…and adequate." As set forth herein, Objector objects to the terms of the Stipulation as failing to satisfy the requirements of FRCP Rule 23 and therefore, the proposed Stipulation should be rejected. In tv Michael Milken & Assocs. Sec. Litig., 150 F.R.D. 57, 65 (S.D.N.Y. 1993) ("[t]he ultimate test for the exercise of Objector hereby incorporates by reference herein the Objections set forth in Jane Doe #7's Objections (Dkt. 218). 1 EFTA00037109 Case 1…
https://www.justice.gov/epstein/files/DataSet%208/EFTA00037109.pdf
EFTA00017070Dataset 8
2020-07-234p827w
… (See dkt. no. 1078.) Ms. Maxwell's eleventh-hour request for reconsideration is denied. As Ms. Maxwell acknowledges in her letter, reconsideration is an "extraordinary remedy." In re Beacon Assocs. Litig., 818 F. Supp. 2d 697, 701 (S.D.N.Y. 2011) (quoting In re Health Mgmt. Sys. Inc. Sec. Litig., 113 F. Supp. 2d 613, 614 (S.D.N.Y. 2000)). Such motions "are properly granted only if there is a showing of: (1) an intervening change in controlling…
https://www.justice.gov/epstein/files/DataSet%208/EFTA00017070.pdf
EFTA00070830Dataset 9
2018-11-297p2,189w
…TheStreet.com 273 F.3d 222, 231 (2d Cir. 2001) ("[S]ome protective orders may not merit a strong presumption against modification. For instance, protective orders that are on their face temporary or limited may not justify reliance by the parties."); see also In re "Agent Orange" Prod. Liab. Litig., 821 F.2d 139, 147 (2d Cir. 1987) ("[A]ppellants . . could not have relied on the permanence of the protective order. The .. . order by its very terms was applicable solely…
https://www.justice.gov/epstein/files/DataSet%209/EFTA00070830.pdf
EFTA00805407Dataset 9
2018-04-0621p5,804w
…273 F.3d 222, 227 n.4 (2d Cir. 2001); Schiller v. City of New York, No. 04 CIV. 7921(KMK)(JC), 2006 WL 2788256, at *2 (S.D.N.Y. Sept. 27, 2006); In re NASDAQ Market-Makers Antitrust Litig., 164 F.R.D. 346, 350-51 (S.D.N.Y. 1996); Savitt v. Vacco, No. 95-CV-1842(RSP/DRH), 1996 WL 663888, at *7 (N.D.N.Y. Nov. 8, 1996) ("The Second Circuit Court of Appeals…
https://www.justice.gov/epstein/files/DataSet%209/EFTA00805407.pdf
EFTA00075024Dataset 9
2006-10-2331p8,486w
…of public access" is incorrect. Maxwell Mem. at 2. The first five motions are all resolved discovery motions. "While adjudication of the ultimate merits of the case arguably triggers the highest degree of protection against sealing, this does not imply that motion papers addressed to a discovery dispute do not trigger the public-access presumption." In re Onmicom Grp., Inc. Sec. Litig., No. 02 CIV. 4483 RCC/MHD, 2006 WL 3016311, at *4 (S.D.N.Y. Oct. 23, 2006)…
https://www.justice.gov/epstein/files/DataSet%209/EFTA00075024.pdf
EFTA00086207Dataset 9
2020-07-234p813w
… (See dkt. no. 1078.) Ms. Maxwell's eleventh-hour request for reconsideration is denied. As Ms. Maxwell acknowledges in her letter, reconsideration is an "extraordinary remedy." In re Beacon Assocs. Litig., 818 F. Supp. 2d 697, 701 (S.D.N.Y. 2011) (quoting In re Health Mgmt. Sys. Inc. Sec. Litig., 113 F. Supp. 2d 613, 614 (S.D.N.Y. 2000)). Such motions "are properly granted only if there is a showing of: (1) an intervening change in controlling…
https://www.justice.gov/epstein/files/DataSet%209/EFTA00086207.pdf
EFTA01098473Dataset 9
2014-04-185p1,443w
…the confidential materials absent leave of Court to file the documents under seal. II. Legal standard and discussion "In order to preserve the confidentiality of sensitive materials, a district court may regulate access to the information by issuing a protective order pursuant to Rule 26(c)," including by issuing an "umbrella" order when document-by-document review is not practical. In re Alexander Grant & Co. Litig., 820 F.2d 352, 355 (11th Cir. 1987). "Under the provisions of umbrella orders…
https://www.justice.gov/epstein/files/DataSet%209/EFTA01098473.pdf
EFTA01202344Dataset 9
2014-08-2134p10,281w
…C. Cir. 2013) 11 In re Guidant Corp. Implantable Defibrillators Prods. Liab. Litig., No. 05-1708, 2008 WL 682174 (D. Minn. Mar. 7, 2008) 22 In re Vioxx Prods. Liab. Litig., 574 F. Supp. 2d 606 (E.D. La. 2008), 22 In re Zyprexa Prods. Liab. Litig., 424 F. Supp. 2d. 488 (E.D.N.Y. 2006) 22 In re Zyprexa Prods. Liab. Litig., 433 F. Supp. 2d 268 (E.D.N.Y. 2006) 22 Journal of Commerce. Inc. v…
https://www.justice.gov/epstein/files/DataSet%209/EFTA01202344.pdf
EFTA01371356Dataset 10
2016-07-011p509w
…is fair, reasonable, and adequate; and (4) whether Plaintiffs' proposed provision for attorneys' fees and costs is reasonable. I. Final Class certification is appropriate The Court earlier granted conditional N14 Class certification, and now "final settlement depends on the finding that the class met all the requisites of Rule 23." In re Gen. Motors Corp. Pick-Up Truck Fuel Tank Products Liab. Litig. ("GM Truck Prods. '), 55 F.3d 768, 797 (3d Cir. 1995). Under Rule 23(a), the Court…
https://www.justice.gov/epstein/files/DataSet%2010/EFTA01371356.pdf