Two cases recently decided by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit indicate that district courts should interpret settlement agreements to broadly release claims, and that plaintiffs should not appeal orders containing such interpretations. Specifically, the court emphasized that plaintiffs who want to appeal such orders must be found in contempt of court before doing so. Thomas v. Blue Cross & Blue Shield Ass’n (“Robertson“), 594 F.3d 823, 831(11th Cir. 2010); Thomas v. Blue Cross & Blue Shield Ass’n (“Kolbusz“), 594 F.3d 814, 819 (11th Cir. 2010).
In a typical class action settlement agreement, a class of plaintiffs releases the defendants from a defined set of claims. This release becomes an injunction once the settlement agreement is approved and entered by the court, as is required by Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23. After that, if a class member asserts a released claim, the defendants can ask the court that entered the agreement to issue a new order that directs the class member to withdraw his or her new claim.
This content has been archived. It is available through our partners, LexisNexis® and Bloomberg Law.
To view this content, please continue to their sites.
Not a Lexis Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
Not a Bloomberg Law Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
LexisNexis® and Bloomberg Law are third party online distributors of the broad collection of current and archived versions of ALM's legal news publications. LexisNexis® and Bloomberg Law customers are able to access and use ALM's content, including content from the National Law Journal, The American Lawyer, Legaltech News, The New York Law Journal, and Corporate Counsel, as well as other sources of legal information.
For questions call 1-877-256-2472 or contact us at [email protected]
