surfingslovak
Well-known member
- Joined
- Jun 13, 2011
- Messages
- 3,809
OK, I fixed that in my post. Thanks for noticing.mwalsh said:Except for misspelling Kozinski, that is. Just noticed.
OK, I fixed that in my post. Thanks for noticing.mwalsh said:Except for misspelling Kozinski, that is. Just noticed.
surfingslovak said:OK, I fixed in my post. Thanks for noticing.mwalsh said:Except for misspelling Kozinski, that is. Just noticed.
surfingslovak said:This made my day. Thank you!mwalsh said:The honorable Judge Kozinski rocks!
TomT said:"Settlements such as this" is class action lawsuits of this ilk... Take a look at LexisNexis. It is littered with class action lawsuits where there were substantial errors, injustices or travesties... I would love to be proven wrong, but I'll bet that this settlement is approved as is...
Would love to comment, but I'm not done analyzing the letter yet. I read the original complaint filed last summer several times to make sure that I'm familiar with it.91040 said:However, I question some of the assertions, stated as facts, in his arguments regarding range and interpretation of the capacity bars.
surfingslovak said:It's worth noting that the Nissan lawsuit was filed at the United States District Court for the Central District in Los Angeles. Cases from the this District are appealed to the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit, which the Honorable Alex Kozinski happens to oversee.
Would love to comment, but I'm not done analyzing the letter yet. I read the original complaint filed last summer several times to make sure that I'm familiar with it.91040 said:However, I question some of the assertions, stated as facts, in his arguments regarding range and interpretation of the capacity bars.
I have no reason to doubt what you say. It does present some interesting future and possible recusals should the rather egregious settlement stand as is, and the subsequent appeals.surfingslovak said:It's worth noting that the Nissan lawsuit was filed at the United States District Court for the Central District in Los Angeles. Cases from the this District are appealed to the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit, which the Honorable Alex Kozinski happens to oversee.
oakwcj said:What I object to is your ridiculously cheap -- and lazy -- shot characterizing all judges as lazy. I've seen some lazy judges in my time, but they are a small minority. I don't have the same warm and fuzzy feelings for the lawyers in this case, so feel free to fire away at them.
The big news is Judge Kozinski's objection.oakwcj said:The settlement approval hearing was held this morning. The judge has taken the request to approve the settlement under submission. Only one of those filing an objection to the settlement was represented by counsel. His name is Alex Kozinski. An Alex Kozinski [aka "the big Kozinski"] is the Chief Judge of the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals. He submitted a well-written, colorful, and persuasive objection. Judge Kozinski is also known for writing colorful opinions. LEAF owner Kozinski lives in Rancho Palos Verdes. So does Judge Kozinski. If anyone on this forum attended the hearing this morning, I'd really like to know more about Mr. Kozinski.
oakwcj said:BTW, his LEAF's name is Pearl.
Here is a link to the objection: https://www.dropbox.com/s/ks02n77tksftzse/Klee Objection.pdf
TimLee said:The big news is Judge Kozinski's objection.oakwcj said:The settlement approval hearing was held this morning. The judge has taken the request to approve the settlement under submission. Only one of those filing an objection to the settlement was represented by counsel. His name is Alex Kozinski. An Alex Kozinski [aka "the big Kozinski"] is the Chief Judge of the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals. He submitted a well-written, colorful, and persuasive objection. Judge Kozinski is also known for writing colorful opinions. LEAF owner Kozinski lives in Rancho Palos Verdes. So does Judge Kozinski. If anyone on this forum attended the hearing this morning, I'd really like to know more about Mr. Kozinski.
But any information on how many people opted out and also how many objected :?:
Do you have a link to the document list, or do you have access to the list from somewhere inside the court documents firewall :?:oakwcj said:AFAIK, the number of people opting out hasn't been disclosed. When I looked through the document list, I saw 6-10 objections, but the only one I accessed and read was Kozinski's.
TimLee said:Do you have a link to the document list, or do you have access to the list from somewhere inside the court documents firewall :?:oakwcj said:AFAIK, the number of people opting out hasn't been disclosed. When I looked through the document list, I saw 6-10 objections, but the only one I accessed and read was Kozinski's.
Surely if this was the hearing to approve the tentative settlement, there had to be some document that detailed the number of people that opted out :?: Beyond a certain level of people opting out the settlement would not be considered a class :?:
Thanks :!: Extremely helpful :!:oakwcj said:All of the Federal Courts are part of the electronic filing system, known as PACER. Anyone can open an account and access the documents for 10 cents a page. If your balance is under $15 for a calendar quarter, the fee is waived. You can sign up at http://www.pacer.gov. The Central District of California records can be accessed from:
https://ecf.cacd.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/ShowIndex.pl
The case number is CV12-08238.
I believe that the names of those who opted out are only made available to counsel, although I'm not sure about that. Nissan has the option to back out if more than 5% of the class opts out, but they are fighting to have the settlement approved, so I'm pretty sure the opt-out number is below the magic 900+ number.
Oh, and here is Nissan's response to the objection letter. It's worth noting that this thread has seen significant traffic from Sedgwick LLP, Nissan's counsel in this case.Alison Frankel said:(A previous version of the story erroneously said there were 134 objectors. There were 13.)