Denying final approval of a $7 million class settlement with National City Bank for alleged discriminatory lending practices was the right move in light of intervening U.S. Supreme Court precedent, the Third Circuit has ruled.
In 2011, after having granted preliminary approval to the settlement the year before, U.S. District Judge Eduardo Robreno of the Eastern District of Pennsylvania denied final approval because of the U.S. Supreme Court's opinion in Wal-Mart v. Dukes that was issued that year, heightening the standard for establishing commonality among class members. When asked for briefings on Dukes' impact before Robreno ruled, both sides — the bank and the black and Hispanic plaintiffs who had alleged they were charged more for mortgages than similarly-situated white people — had continued to support class certification, as the settlement agreement had required them to do, according to the opinion.
This content has been archived.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]
