Legal Opinion · Concurring in part, dissenting in part
Browning v. Angelfish Swim School, Inc.
District Court of Appeal of Florida
Decided January 28, 2009No. 3D08-1827Published
1Concurring in part, dissenting in partShepherd, J.
The majority reverses the order certifying the class in this case to give the litigants a second chance to prove they are wealthy enough to serve as adequate representatives of the class. Although the ability and willingness of a class representative to finance the litigation is relevant to determining adequacy, see 5 Jerold S. Solovy, et al., Moore’s Federal Practice § 23.25[2][d][i] (3d ed. 1997), I have deep reservations about making wealth a feature of a class determination. See Chi-*361solm v. TranSouth Fin. Corp., 194 F.R.D. 538, 555 (E.D.Va.2000) (“A test based upon the possession of deep…
2Cases cited19 opinions
- Amchem Products, Inc. v. WindsorSupreme Court of the United States · 1997
- General Telephone Co. of Southwest v. FalconSupreme Court of the United States · 1982
- American Pipe & Construction Co. v. UtahSupreme Court of the United States · 1974
- East Texas Motor Freight System, Inc. v. RodriguezSupreme Court of the United States · 1977
- Crown, Cork & Seal Co. v. ParkerSupreme Court of the United States · 1983
14 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.