Thursday, April 28, 2016

Rule 23(f) Granted; Lower Court Reversed!

Funny how that happens.

This part is hilarious -- you know how some defendants want to jump the gun on class cert, show they are being "aggressive," and so move to strike the class allegations instead of just letting the process proceed as it should in an orderly fashion according to Rule 23.

But then they win(!) unexpectedly perhaps, and face the inevitable interlocutory petition under Rule 23(f).

But NO says the winning D:
Defendants argue that we lack jurisdiction to hear this appeal because Rule 23(f) only authorizes “an appeal from an order granting or denying class-action certification,” not an appeal from an order granting or denying a motion to strike class allegations.  We reject Defendants’ narrow reading of Rule 23(f) because the district court’s order striking Plaintiffs’ class allegations “is the functional equivalent of denying a motion to certify the case as a class action.” 
Come on, seriously?

Some lawyers are just d*cks.


Anonymous said...

Where's the penis drawing from the Halmos deposition?

Anonymous said...

Great job, and yes, some lawyers are just d*cks and spend all their time coming up with this type of hair-splitting.

P. Guyotat said...

I'm sorry, SFL, but that's totally a fair argument given the plain language of the rule.

South Florida Lawyers said...

P. Guyotat, it just seems hypocritical and unfair to use a device outside Rule 23 to dismiss class allegations (12b motion to strike) but than argue on appeal that it is not functionally the same as a denial of class cert.

Anonymous said...

Defense lawyers pull these dick moves because the courts allow them to.