In Re International House of Pancakes Franchise Lit.

Decision Date02 November 1973
Docket NumberNo. 73-1574.,73-1574.
Citation487 F.2d 303
PartiesIn re INTERNATIONAL HOUSE OF PANCAKES FRANCHISE LITIGATION. Robert J. HELFENBEIN and Circle Investments of Missouri, Inc., on behalf of themselves, etc., Plaintiffs-Appellees, v. INTERNATIONAL INDUSTRIES, INC., et al., Defendants-Appellants. Robert J. HELFENBEIN and Crescent Investment of Iowa, Inc., on behalf of themselves, etc., Plaintiffs-Appellees, v. INTERNATIONAL INDUSTRIES, INC., et al., Defendants-Appellants. Joe Jimmie REED, on behalf of himself, etc., Plaintiff-Appellee, and Thomas Lee Simmons, Intervenor-Plaintiff-Appellee, v. INTERNATIONAL INDUSTRIES, INC., Defendant-Appellant. Rudolf WETH, on behalf of himself, etc., Plaintiff-Appellee, v. INTERNATIONAL INDUSTRIES, INC., Defendant-Appellant. Richard L. ERICKSON, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. INTERNATIONAL INDUSTRIES, INC., Defendant-Appellant.
CourtU.S. Court of Appeals — Eighth Circuit

Harry L. Gershon, Los Angeles, Cal., and Maurice O'Sullivan and Thomas J. Wheatley, Kansas City, Mo., made appearance for defendants-appellants in this Court.

Barton P. Cohen, Overland Park, Kan., and Loeb H. Granoff Kansas City, Mo., filed motion of plaintiffs-appellees to affirm.

Before GIBSON, LAY and STEPHENSON, Circuit Judges.

SUPPLEMENTAL ORDER OF SUMMARY AFFIRMANCE

This Court, on September 26, 1973, entered our order summarily affirming an order of the District Court for the Western District of Missouri, The Honorable William R. Collinson. The District Court's order disapproved a proposed settlement agreement between International Industries, Inc., the defendant in a multi-district class action suit alleging violations of the Sherman Anti-Trust Act, and certain of the numerous plaintiffs in the case. The proposed settlement agreement had been actively opposed by a number of the plaintiffs at the hearing on the proposed settlement agreement.

After our order of summary affirmance had been entered, defendant-appellant filed suggestions in opposition to the motion to affirm which had been filed by the plaintiff-appellees in violation of Rule 9(b)1 of the Rules of the United States Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit, in that it was filed prior to the filing of appellant's brief. However, as our order of September 26, 1973, recites, our action of summary affirmance was based as well on Rule 9(a)2 of the Local Rules, which provides that the Court upon its own motion may summarily affirm when the questions presented do not require further argument.

To insure that the interests of justice have been served in this appeal, we have carefully considered the suggestions filed in opposition to summary affirmance. Upon review of the record and the suggestions, we conclude that there is no clear showing that the trial court was guilty of an abuse of discretion in refusing to approve the proposed settlement. This is the standard of review we apply to an appeal of the approval or disapproval of a proposed settlement. See, United Founders Life Ins. Co. v. Consumers Nat. Life Ins. Co., 447 F.2d 647, 655 (7th Cir. 1971); West Virginia v. Chas. Pfizer & Co., 440 F.2d 1079, 1085 (2d Cir.), cert. denied sub nom., Cotler Drugs Inc. v. Chas. Pfizer & Co., 404 U.S. 871, 92 S.Ct. 81,...

To continue reading

Request your trial
12 cases
  • Donovan v. Robbins, s. 84-1287
    • United States
    • United States Courts of Appeals. United States Court of Appeals (7th Circuit)
    • January 3, 1985
    ...v. City of New Orleans, supra, 694 F.2d at 992, on rehearing, 729 F.2d at 1558-59 (en banc), and In re International House of Pancakes Franchise Litigation, 487 F.2d 303, 304 (8th Cir.1973), and implicitly in SEC v. Randolph, 736 F.2d 525, 529 (9th Cir.1984), and Carson v. American Brands, ......
  • General Motors Corp. Engine Interchange Litigation, In re
    • United States
    • United States Courts of Appeals. United States Court of Appeals (7th Circuit)
    • February 26, 1979
    ...and another has reviewed such a refusal without expressly considering the appealability issue, In re International House of Pancakes Franchise Litigation, 487 F.2d 303 (8th Cir. 1973). 15 Although in Norman the court maintained that appellate review of the initial determination of the settl......
  • U.S. v. City of Alexandria
    • United States
    • United States Courts of Appeals. United States Court of Appeals (5th Circuit)
    • April 10, 1980
    ...abuse of discretion standard to review of a trial court's refusal to approve a settlement. See In re International House of Pancakes Franchise Litigation, 487 F.2d 303, 304 (8th Cir. 1973). 7 This extension by the Eighth In the procedural context of this case, the desirability of careful re......
  • Grunin v. International House of Pancakes, s. 74-1066
    • United States
    • United States Courts of Appeals. United States Court of Appeals (8th Circuit)
    • March 17, 1975
    ...rejected the proposed settlement. In re International House of Pancakes Litigation, 1973-2 Trade Cases P 74,616 (W.D.Mo.), aff'd, 487 F.2d 303 (8th Cir. 1973). The court acknowledged that the "precarious financial condition" of IHOP caused plaintiffs' counsel to conclude that "any substanti......
  • Request a trial to view additional results

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT