Civil Litigation
Oct. 13, 2020
Misguided decision could upend class action practice
A federal appellate court found that class representative incentive awards — the common practice of permitting a court-supervised payment to class representatives for their service to the class in successful class actions — are unlawful based on allegedly “binding” U.S. Supreme Court precedent from 1881 and 1885, when class actions and Rule 23 did not exist.
Adam J. Zapala
Partner
Cotchett, Pitre & McCarthy LLP
840 Malcolm Rd Ste 200
Burlingame , CA 94010
Phone: (650) 697-6000
Email: azapala@cpmlegal.com
UC Hastings COL; San Francisco CA
Adam focuses on complex litigation, including antitrust, employment & civil rights, privacy & cybersecurity, qui tam/false claims, consumer protection and class actions generally. Adam has served as lead counsel, or in other court-appointed leadership positions, in some of the largest and most complex litigation matters in the United States.
James G.B. Dallal
Senior Associate
Cotchett, Pitre & McCarthy, LLP
Phone: (650) 697-6000
Email: jdallal@cpmlegal.com
James primarily works on antitrust class actions in cases on behalf of plaintiffs challenging nationwide and international cartels.
A recent 2-1 decision from a panel of the 11th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals found that class representative incentive awards -- the common practice of permitting a court-supervised payment to class representatives for their service to the class in successful class actions -- are unlawful based on allegedly "binding" U.S. Supreme Court precedent from 1881 and 1885, when class actions and Rule 23 did not exist. $95
Or access this article for $45
(Purchase provides 7-day access to this article. Printing, posting or downloading is not allowed.)
Already a subscriber?
Sign In