Class Action Dilemmas: Pursuing Public Goals for Private GainClass action lawsuits--allowing one or a few plaintiffs to represent many who seek redress--have long been controversial. The current controversy, centered on lawsuits for money damages, is characterized by sharp disagreement among stakeholders about the kinds of suits being filed, whether plaintiffs' claims are meritorious, and whether resolutions to class actions are fair or socially desirable. Ultimately, these concerns lead many to wonder, Are class actions worth their costs to society and to business? Do they do more harm than good? To describe the landscape of current damage class action litigation, elucidate problems, and identify solutions, the RAND Institute for Civil Justice conducted a study using qualitative and quantitative research methods. The researchers concluded that the controversy over damage class actions has proven intractable because it implicates deeply held but sharply contested ideological views among stakeholders. Nevertheless, many of the political antagonists agree that class action practices merit improvement. The authors argue that both practices and outcomes could be substantially improved if more judges would supervise class action litigation more actively and scrutinize proposed settlements and fee awards more carefully. Educating and empowering judges to take more responsibility for case outcomes--and ensuring that they have the resources to do so--can help the civil justice system achieve a better balance between the public goals of class actions and the private interests that drive them. |
Contents
3 | |
9 | |
Chapter Three VIRTUES AND VICES | 49 |
Section II | 135 |
Chapter Four INTO THE FISHBOWL | 137 |
ROBERTS v BAUSCH LOMB INC | 145 |
PINNEY v GREAT WESTERN | 175 |
GRAHAM v SECURITY PACIFIC HOUSING SERVICES INC | 191 |
IN RE LOUISIANAPACIFIC INNERSEAL SIDING | 339 |
COX v SHELL OIL | 375 |
Section III | 399 |
Chapter Fifteen THE GREAT BIG QUESTION ABOUT CLASS ACTIONS | 401 |
Chapter Sixteen ACHIEVING THE OBJECTIVES OF RULE 23b3CLASS ACTIONS | 471 |
Appendix A RULE 23 OF THE FEDERAL RULES OF CIVIL PROCEDURE | 507 |
Appendix B DATABASE CONSTRUCTION | 511 |
Appendix C QUALITATIVE INTERVIEW METHODOLOGY | 523 |
SELNICK v SACRAMENTO CABLE | 211 |
INMAN v HEILIGMEYERS | 225 |
MARTINEZ v ALLSTATE 2 AND SENDEJO v FARMERS | 255 |
IN RE FACTOR VIII OR IX CONCENTRATE BLOOD PRODUCTS | 293 |
ATKINS v HARCROS | 319 |
Other editions - View all
Class Action Dilemmas: Pursuing Public Goals for Private Gain Deborah R. Hensler No preview available - 2000 |
Common terms and phrases
Advisory Committee Alabama alleged allocated to class Allstate amount asbestos attorney fees awarded/paid Bausch & Lomb benefits allocated breast implant Civil claimants claims class action attorneys class action lawsuits class action litigation class action settlement class certification class counsel class members compensation complaint consumer class actions contact lens Corporation credit life insurance damage class actions defendant’s double rounding estimated Factor VIII fairness hearing federal court fee award fees and costs fees and expenses filed Gert Town Harcros Heilig-Meyers hemophiliacs individual interviews issues judges judicial jurisdiction late fees lawyers lenses liability litigation Louisiana-Pacific mass tort class million negotiated opt-out paid parties payments percent personal injury plaintiff attorneys polybutylene potential practices premium Public Citizen reported Rule 23 Sacramento Cable settle settlement agreement settlement benefits settlement class settlement fund suits supra note Texas tion tort class actions transaction costs trial U.S. Supreme Court Zavala County