Home -> Law Blog Directory -> Class Action Blogs -> CAFA Law Blog - Information, cases and insights regarding the Class Action Fairness Act of 2005

Class Action

: CAFA Law Blog - Information, cases and insights regarding the Class Action Fairness Act of 2005

Double Your Pleasure - Double Your Fun - CAFA Style?

International Union, United Auto-Mobile, Aerospace, and Agricultural Implement Workers of America v. General Motors Corporation, 2008 WL 2968408 (E.D. Mich. July 31, 2008)

International Union, United Auto-Mobile, Aerospace, and Agricultural Implement Workers of America v. Chrysler, LLC, 2008 WL 2980046 (E.D. Mich. July 31, 2008)

I mean, what could be more fun than discussing CAFA requirements related to notice of proposed class settlements?? Well, in two lengthy opinions in two related cases with little ties to CAFA, the courts have held that both Chrysler and GM correctly followed the mandates of CAFA. Can it be??

Although few cases, if any, ever mention the notice of class settlement provision in CAFA, in these two cases, both opinions acknowledge that both GM and Chrysler provided notice of a proposed class settlement to both the federal and state attorneys as required under 28 U.S.C. § 1715(b).

At issue in both cases were objections filed by a handful of potential class member to joint motions seeking approval of proposed class settlement agreements. At the end of the day, the court found that the settlements were fair, reasonable, and adequate and approved same. It seems that not all is bad for the automakers these days …

Full post as published by CAFA Law Blog - Information, cases and insights regarding the Class Action Fairness Act of 2005 on May 19, 2009 (boomark / email).