Time: Thu Oct 02 09:21:22 1997
	by primenet.com (8.8.5/8.8.5) with ESMTP id JAA19554;
	Thu, 2 Oct 1997 09:05:35 -0700 (MST)
	by usr03.primenet.com (8.8.5/8.8.5) with SMTP id IAA22158;
	Thu, 2 Oct 1997 08:52:43 -0700 (MST)
Date: Thu, 02 Oct 1997 08:52:12 -0700
To: (Recipient list suppressed)
From: Paul Andrew Mitchell [address in tool bar]
Subject: SLS: Class Action Interlocutory Appeals (fwd)
Status: RO

>From: "Michael C. Zusman" <mczlaw@teleport.com>
>To: Multiple recipients of list <civprocedure-l@lawlibdns.wuacc.edu>
>Subject: Class Action Interlocutory Appeals
>At 09:27 AM 10/2/97 -0500, you wrote:
>>The Judicial Conference of the United States has approved a new rule
>>governing class actions.  Rule 23(f) would be created under the proposed
>>amendment.  This amendment to the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure would
>>allow immediate appeal of a trial court's decision certifying or denying a
>>If approved by the U.S. Supreme Court and Congress, the amendment will take
>>effect December 1, 1998.
>IMHO, another bad idea engendered by perceived abuses by the "fraud on the
>market" and mass tort crowd.  
>Interlocutory appeals are a pain for all the reasons elucidated in the
>general case law (piecemeal litigation, etc.).  Giving them an official
>sanction in the class action context is a political palliative
>disproportionately benefitting big corporate interests.  
>Having said that, one can understand why the Judicial Conference (Supreme
>Court and Congress) might go for such a measure in light of class actions
>in which the average "victim" gets about 69 cents and the firms supposedly
>acting for the interests of victims rake in millions, often times at a huge
>multiple of lodestar.
>I am a plaintiffs' securities attorney and have done a bit of class action
>work myself, but have about had it with the Milberg Weiss and Bernstein
>Litowitz types who have a fraud on the market class action complaint
>whipped out and filed before the proverbial ink is dry on that 5% stock
>price drop.  
>A more honest (and direct) solution to perceived abuses in the class action
>context might be to limit fraud on the market actions in some way or to
>limit fee recoveries associated with them.  As for mass torts, that is not
>my area, and perhaps others can speak to that.
>Of course, if I am off base and the change of law has a completely
>different rationale, please disregard my diatribe.  [Off soap box]
>Very truly yours,
>Michael C. Zusman
>Private reply:         "Michael C. Zusman" <mczlaw@teleport.com>
>Public replies:         CIVPROCEDURE-L@lawlibdns.wuacc.edu
>To subscribe, signoff:  listserv@lawlibdns.wuacc.edu
>Listserv questions:     Quintin Chatman, qchatman@pf.com
>With technical assistance from WashLawWEB
>    http://lawlib.wuacc.edu/washlaw/washlaw.html

Paul Andrew Mitchell, Sui Juris      : Counselor at Law, federal witness 01
B.A.: Political Science, UCLA;   M.S.: Public Administration, U.C.Irvine 02
tel:     (520) 320-1514: machine; fax: (520) 320-1256: 24-hour/day-night 03
email:   [address in tool bar]       : using Eudora Pro 3.0.3 on 586 CPU 04
website: http://supremelaw.com       : visit the Supreme Law Library now 05
ship to: c/o 2509 N. Campbell, #1776 : this is free speech,  at its best 06
             Tucson, Arizona state   : state zone,  not the federal zone 07
             Postal Zone 85719/tdc   : USPS delays first class  w/o this 08
_____________________________________: Law is authority in written words 09
As agents of the Most High, we came here to establish justice.  We shall 10
not leave, until our mission is accomplished and justice reigns eternal. 11
======================================================================== 12
[This text formatted on-screen in Courier 11, non-proportional spacing.] 13


Return to Table of Contents for

Supreme Law School:   E-mail