Settlements: Future Claimants, Opt Outs, Objectors, Mootness and Cy Pres

This section of the course addresses related issues in the settlement context: how to deal with who is in and who is out of the settlement and the case altogether. The first set of readings considers the problem of timing in settlements, especially future claimants. Stephenson v. Dow Chemical Co. addresses the question of future claimants in the context of a collateral attack on a closed settlement, whereas Uhl v. Thoroughbred Technology looks at it at the certification stage. Next we consider the question of the standards applying to settlement. Rule 23(e) requires a settlement to be approved by the judge. We have already touched on this issue in the Amchem case, but now we revisit it more in depth with three cases: Sullivan v. DB Investments, In re General Motors Products Liability Litigation, and Reynolds v. Beneficial National Bank. Then we turn to the question of who is in and who is out. The opt out problem and settlement design is the subject of In re Prudential Ins. Co. Sales Practices Litigation. Objectors and their role in the litigation is addressed in Devlin v. Scardelletti. Three cases address the question of whether settlement can moot a class action: Weiss v. Regal Collections, McCauley v. Trans Union, and United States Parole Commission v. Geraghty. Finally, In re Heartland Payment Systems addresses the issue of settlements affording cy pres relief in the form of donations to a good cause. Is this a legitimate use of the class action device?