Rules Amendments Effective 12/1/09
Congress has taken no action on the amendments to the Federal Rules of Appellate, Bankruptcy, Civil, and Criminal Procedure, approved by the Supreme Court on March 26, 2009, which include revisions of time periods in 91 rules. The following amendments to the rules on the computation of time therefore will take effect on December 1, 2009:
- Appellate Rules 4, 5, 6, 10, 12, 15, 19, 25, 26, 27, 28.1, 30, 31, 39, and 41;
- Bankruptcy Rules 1007, 1011, 1019, 1020, 2002, 2003, 2006, 2007, 2007.2, 2008, 2015, 2015.1, 2015.2, 2015.3, 2016, 3001, 3015, 3017, 3019, 3020, 4001, 4002, 4004, 6003, 6004, 6006, 6007, 7004, 7012, 8001, 8002, 8003, 8006, 8009, 8015, 8017, 9006, 9027, and 9033;
- Civil Rules 6, 12, 14, 15, 23, 27, 32, 38, 50, 52, 53, 54, 55, 56, 59, 62, 65, 68, 71.1, 72, 81; Supplemental Rules B, C, and G; and Illustrative Civil Forms 3, 4, and 60; and
- Criminal Rules 5.1, 7, 12.1, 12.3, 29, 33, 34, 35, 41, 45, 47, 58, and 59; Rule 8 of the Rules Governing Section 2254 Cases in the United States District Courts; and Rule 8 of the Rules Governing Section 2255 Proceedings for the United States District Courts.
The following non-time computation amendments and new rules under the Federal Rules of Appellate, Bankruptcy, Civil, and Criminal Procedure will also take effect on December 1, 2009:
- Appellate Rules 4, 22, 26, and new Rule 12.1;
- Bankruptcy Rules 2016, 4008, 7052, 9006, 9015, 9021, 9023, and new Rule 7058;
- Civil Rules 13, 15, 48, and 81, and new Rule 62.1; and
- Criminal Rules 7, 32, 32.2, and 41; Rule 11 and new Rule 12 of the Rules Governing Section 2254 Cases in the United States District Courts; and Rule 11 of the Rules Governing Section 2255 Proceedings for the United States District Courts.
In accordance with 28 U.S.C. § 2074(a) and the March 26, 2009, Supreme Court orders, they will govern all proceedings commenced on or after December 1, 2009, and “insofar as just and practicable” all proceedings then pending.
The time-computation changes are intended to make the federal rules on calculating time periods simpler, clearer, and consistent. The principal simplifying innovation is to count all days, including intermediate weekends and holidays, in computing time periods under the procedural rules. The current rules exclude intermediate weekends and holidays for some short time periods, resulting in inconsistency and unnecessary complication. In addition, all the deadlines in the rules were reviewed and most short periods were extended to offset the shift in the time-computation rules and to ensure that each period is reasonable.
Further information on the time-computation rules amendments and parallel changes to certain statutory time periods affecting court proceedings can be found in the excerpt reports of the Rules Committees, which are posted on the Rules web site at http://tiny.cc/2QZB2 and at http://www.uscourts.gov/rules/HR1626.pdf. Separate PowerPoint presentations, which you may find helpful, explaining the amended time-computation rules and their operation in appellate, bankruptcy, and district court proceedings are posted at http://tiny.cc/5GEJU.
I Object, Unless You Pay Me … One Million Dollars!
Posted in Articles, class action reform, Class Action Trends, Commentary, Practice Tips, tagged class action objection, class certification, objector blackmail, professional objector, quick-pay, settlement approval on December 14, 2009| 1 Comment »
Vanderbilt law professor Brian T. Fitzpatrick has published a great new research paper titled The End of Objector Blackmail? The paper discusses the problems of objectors blackmailing the parties to a class action settlement into paying them a portion of the fees at the threat of holding up final approval and resolution of the settlement. Professor Fitzpatrick discusses the history of the problem, provides a statistical analysis of “quick-pay provisions,” which have been one approach to combatting the problem, and finally argues for an approach that prohibits settlements of objector appeals unless the settlement includes a modification to the underlying agreement.
My own take on this issue, based purely on my own anecdotal observations, is that the objector blackmail problem has improved significantly over the past few years. From a defendant’s perspective, it was never much of a problem to have class counsel forfeit a portion of their fee to an objector to hasten approval of a settlement, but many plaintiffs’ lawyers have started refusing to negotiate with objectors. Two additional effective practical tools for fighting frivolous objectors include 1) asking the Court to require the posting of a substantial bond pending appeal of any objection to the settlement; and 2) asking the trial court for sanctions against frivolous objectors or their counsel.
Read Full Post »