If my recent post about the upcoming January 20, 2009 Class Action Law Monitor/Strafford Publications CLE on Rule 23(f) appeals didn’t convince you to sign up, perhaps this preview of the speakers and topics will:
I. Key features of Rule 23(f) (Barry Sullivan, Partner, Jenner & Block, Chicago)
A. No automatic right to appeal
B. No automatic stay of district court proceedings
C. Appeal must be filed within 10 days of class certification order
II. Case law addressing Rule 23(f) (Cindy D. Hanson, Partner, Kilpatrick Stockton, Atlanta)
A. “Death knell” cases and “reverse death knell” cases
B. Appeal raises fundamental and unsettled legal issue
C. Clear error in district court ruling
D. “Sliding scale” standard
III. Strategies for pursuing appellate review of class certification decision (Paul G. Karlsgodt, Partner, Baker Hostetler, Denver).
IV. Strategies for challenging motion for appellate review of class certification (Steve W. Berman, Managing Partner, Hagens Berman Sobol Shapiro, Seattle)
My handout materials are available here: rule-23f-presentation-final
For the other speakers’ handouts, see this link (and while you’re at it, why not sign up?)
MCLE: Strategies for Pursuing or Opposing Appellate Review in the Absence of Clear Standards…
Here’s a worthly teleconference for any class action practitioner spending time in federal court (which should be all of them after CAFA): Strategies for Pursuing or Opposing Appellate Review in the Absence of Clear Standards Here is the program outli…
[…] its own prior decision and instead relied on federal jurisprudence prior to the addition of FRCP 23(f) in 1998, which now expressly permits discretionary interlocutory appeals in the federal courts. […]
[…] program was first presented in January 2009, and apparently folks liked it enough to justify a reprise. Check back here over the next few […]
[…] is available at all in state court class actions will vary from state to state. These days, Rule 23(f) will apply to allow discretionary interlocutory appeal in most federal class actions, although the […]
[…] The procedural history of McReynolds is interesting, because the plaintiffs had actually moved for reconsideration of an earlier denial of class certification after the decidedly pro-employer decision in Dukes was announced. Although the trial court judge was unconvinced to change his earlier decision, he did agree that Dukes presented a good basis for reconsideration of the class action issue, and expressly stated in his decision that he believed the case was a good candidate for an interlocutory appeal under Rule 23(f). […]