Message from @JonJon
Discord ID: 495386102509862914
6. Frank v Gaos
Issue: Whether, or in what circumstances, a cy pres award of class action proceeds that provides no direct relief to class members supports class certification and comports with the requirement that a settlement binding class members must be “fair, reasonable, and adequate.”
http://www.scotusblog.com/case-files/cases/frank-v-gaos/
https://www.oyez.org/cases/2018/17-961
-found by Xrindahl
2000 limiton words
letters sorry
yeah
i did that too
Im talkingto someone else sry
wrote out a long ...long post and bam
{6 A} Facts of the case
In a group of consolidated class actions, three plaintiffs sued Google on behalf of internet users who claimed that their privacy was violated under the Stored Communications Act, 18 U.S.C. § 2701, et. seq., and California law by the company’s disclosure of their internet search terms to third party websites. The case went to mediation, and the parties reached a settlement which they submitted to the district court for approval in July 2013.
Among the terms of the settlement were that Google would pay $5.3 million of the $8.3 million total to six cy pres recipients, provided that they agreed to dedicate the funds to promoting education and initiatives relating to internet privacy. The district court certified the class for settlement purposes, and preliminarily approved the settlement. Notice was sent out to the class in 2014, with 13 class members opting out and 5, including Thomas Frank, filing objections (“the Objectors”).
{6 B} The district court approved the parties’ settlement in 2015, and with regard to the objections, found that: (1) the cy pres award was appropriate because the award was non-distributable, (2) Rule 23(b)(3)’s superiority requirement was not affected by whether the award was cy pres, (3) there was a substantial nexus between the cy pres recipients and the interests of the class members, and there was no evidence that the parties’ preexisting relationships with the recipients influenced the selection process, and (4) the amount of attorney fees was commensurate with the benefit to the class.
The Ninth Circuit approved the district court’s ruling approving the settlement, holding that the district court had not abused its discretion with regard to any of the four findings described above.
{6 C} Question of the Issue:
Does a cy pres award of class action proceeds that provides no direct relief to class members support class certification and comport with the requirement that a settlement binding class members must be “fair, reasonable, and adequate,” and if so, in what circumstances?
The Demorat Titanic ship is sinking fast, but at times it seems to slow
{6 D} Definition of Cy-pres: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cy-près_doctrine : The cy-près doctrine (/ˌsiːˈpreɪ/ SEE-PRAY) is a legal doctrine that first arose in courts of equity. The legal French term literally means "so near/close" and can be translated as "as near as possible" or "as near as may be".[1] The doctrine originated in the law of charitable trusts, but has been applied in the context of class action settlements in the United States.
A legal term for 'ambiguity'
7. Nielsen v Preap http://www.scotusblog.com/case-files/cases/nielsen-v-preap/ Issue: Whether a criminal alien becomes exempt from mandatory detention under 8 U.S.C. § 1226(c) if, after the alien is released from criminal custody, the Department of Homeland Security does not take him into immigration custody immediately.
Police And State’s Attorney Response To Montgomery County House Delegation’s Request To Open Criminal Investigation Against Judge Brett Kavanaugh
Hell, this is good publicity for Cruz. https://twitter.com/DaniellaMicaela/status/1040348430919495682
8. GARZA v IDAHO http://www.scotusblog.com/case-files/cases/garza-v-idaho/ Issue: Whether the “presumption of prejudice” recognized in Roe v. Flores-Ortega applies when a criminal defendant instructs his trial counsel to file a notice of appeal but trial counsel decides not to do so because the defendant’s plea agreement included an appeal waiver. Please see related case: https://www.oyez.org/cases/1999/98-1441
Argument preview: Justices to consider enforceability of arbitration agreements for transportation workers
All of this has happened before. All of this will happen again. A business signs contracts with its workers (or its customers, or suppliers, or anybody else for that matter), in which the workers agree that they will resolve any disputes before an arbitrator rather than a court. Employees often do not like arbitration, in part because they worry that the arbitrator will be more favorable to the employer than a court. The lower courts hold the agreements unenforceable (reflecting a longstanding judicial suspicion of a contract premised on the notion that employers prefer to limit judicial scrutiny of their behavior). The Supreme Court grants review and in a closely divided decision holds that the Federal Arbitration Act requires that the disputes be sent to arbitration. It would be easy to predict such a fate for New Prime Inc. v. Oliveira, on the argument calendar for the first Wednesday of the new term. But Oliveira presents some powerful arguments that should give pause. Most obviously, when you look to the actual text of the FAA, you will notice that it does not exempt all transportation “employees.” Rather, it exempts the “contracts of employment” of transportation employees, which is not quite the same thing. The difference might be significant because the term “contracts of employment” was commonly used at the time of the FAA’s adoption (the presidency of Calvin Coolidge) as a general term to describe both contracts with employees and contracts with independent contractors. And so, a textualist, applying the FAA in accordance with the common understanding of the text at the time of its adoption, might be persuaded that the exempted “contracts of employment” include all contracts with transportation workers whether the workers happen to be employees or independent contractors.
