Andrews v. American Tel. & Tel. Co.
| Decision Date | 19 September 1996 |
| Docket Number | Nos. 95-8046,95-8047 and 95-8048,s. 95-8046 |
| Citation | 95 F.3d 1014 |
| Parties | , RICO Bus.Disp.Guide 9164 Lamar ANDREWS, Individually and as representatives of a class of all other persons similarly situated; Jerry Harper, Individually and as class representatives of a class of all other persons similarly situated; Josephine Meadows, Individually and as class representatives of a class of all other persons similarly situated; J.D. Powell, Individually and as class representatives of a class of all other persons similarly situated, Plaintiffs-Appellees, v. AMERICAN TELEPHONE & TELEGRAPH COMPANY, individually and as representatives of a class of all other entities similarly situated, Defendant, Cross-Claimant-Appellant, Bellsouth Corporation, Individually and as representatives of a class of all other entities similarly situated; Bellsouth Communications Incorporated, Individually and as representatives of a class of all other entities similarly situated; Bellsouth Communications Systems, Incorporated, Individually and as representatives of a class of all other entities similarly situated; Southern Bell Telephone and Telegraph Company, Individually and as representatives of a class of all other entities similarly situated; Financial Collection Agencies, Individually and as representatives of a class of all other entities similarly situated, Defendants, U.S. Sprint Communications Company Limited Partnership, Individually and as representatives of a class of all other entities similarly situated, MCI Telecommunications Corporation, Individually and as representatives of a class of all other entities similarly situated; Mical Communications, Individually and as representatives of a class of all other entities similarly situated; Sweepstakes, Individually and as representatives of a class of all other entities similarly situated; Prize 395BE, Individually and as representatives of a class of all other entities similarly situated; Reward Line, Individually and as representatives of a class of all other entities similarly situated; Value House, Indivi |
| Court | U.S. Court of Appeals — Eleventh Circuit |
James R. Wyrsch, Keith E. Drill, Wyrsch, Atwell, Mirakian, Lee & Hobbs, Kansas City, MO, Julie E. Grimaldi, Kansas City, MO, for U.S. Sprint.
Emmet J. Bondurant, Michael B. Terry, John E. Floyd, M. Jerome Elmore, Bondurant, Mixson & Elmore, Atlanta, GA, James D. Daniels, Hall, Dickler, Kent, Friedman & Wood, New York City, for West Interactive.
Michael C. Spencer, Milberg, Weiss, Bershad, Hynes & Lerach, New York City, for Andrews.
Appeals from the United States District Court for the Southern District of Georgia.
Before COX and BARKETT, Circuit Judges, and PROPST *, Senior District Judge.
American Telephone & Telegraph Corporation (AT & T), Sprint Corporation (Sprint), and West-Interactive Corporation (West-Interactive) separately appeal the district court's certification under Fed.R.Civ.P. 23(b)(3) of classes of plaintiffs, in two related cases, alleging claims relating to hundreds of "900-number" telemarketing programs. We treat these separate appeals in the same opinion because the appellants raise similar issues and appeal the same class...
To continue reading
Request your trial
97 cases
-
Matter of Skinner Group, Inc.
...1991).8 Second, class counsel must be qualified and must serve the interests of the entire class. See Andrews v. American Telephone & Telegraph Co., 95 F.3d 1014, 1022 (11th Cir.1996); In re American Medical Systems, Inc., 75 F.3d 1069, 1082 (6th Cir. 1996) ("adequacy of representation" mea......
-
Schnall v. At & T Wireless Services, Inc.
...Holding, Inc., 242 F.3d 136, 147 (3d Cir.2001); Spence v. Glock, Ges.m.b.H., 227 F.3d 308, 316 (5th Cir.2000); Andrews v. Am. Tel. & Tel. Co., 95 F.3d 1014, 1025 (11th Cir.1996); Castano v. Am. Tobacco Co., 84 F.3d 734, 740 (5th Cir.1996); Georgine v. Amchem Prods., Inc., 83 F.3d 610, 617 (......
-
Armstrong v. Martin Marietta Corp.
...was not meant to substitute an appellate court's judgment for that of the trial court"). See also, e.g., Andrews v. American Tel. & Tel. Co., 95 F.3d 1014 (11th Cir.1996) (addressing legal issue of standing as well as discretionary Rule 23 issues); Hudson v. Delta Air Lines, Inc., 90 F.3d 4......
-
Allison v Citgo Petroleum Corp., 5
...that the greater the number of individual issues, the less likely superiority can be established); see also Andrews v. AT&T, 95 F.3d 1014, 1023 (11th Cir. 1996). These manageability problems are exacerbated by the fact that this action must be tried to a jury and involves more than a thousa......
Request a trial to view additional results
10 books & journal articles
-
Antitrust Class Certification Standards
..., 180 F.R.D. at 181; In re NASDAQ Market-Makers , 169 F.R.D. at 512. 91. See, e.g ., Valley Drug , 350 F.3d at 1189; Andrews v. AT&T, 95 F.3d 1014, 1023 (11th Cir. 1996); In re Am. Med. Sys., Inc., 75 F.3d 1069, 1083 (6th Cir. 1996). 92. See, e.g ., Culver v. City of Milwaukee, 277 F.3d 908......
-
Appellate Practice and Procedure - Lawrence A. Slovensky
...which the Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit allowed interlocutory appeals under 28 U.S.C. Sec. 1292(b) include: Andrews v. AT&T, 95 F.3d 1014, 1021 (11th Cir. 1996) (allowing interlocutory appeal of order certifying class action alleging RICO violations); McMillian v. Johnson, 88 F.......
-
Class actions: fundamentals of certification analysis.
...the court to engage in multiple separate factual determinations" and make the class unmanageable); Andrews v. American Tel. & Tel. Ca, 95 F.3d 1014, 1023-24 (11th Cir. 1996) (resolution of common issue concerning whether defendants were engaged in an illegal gambling scheme "breaks down......
-
Establishing injury "by reason of" racketeering activity: a critical analysis of the 11th Circuit's per se detrimental reliance requirement and its impact on RICO class actions.
...putative class. To prove this point, one need not look further than the opinions of the 11th Circuit in Andrews v. Am. Tel. and Tel. Co., 95 F.3d 1014 (11th Cir. 1996), and Andrews involved two Rule 23(b) classes, in a consolidated case, one characterized as the "Andrews class" and the othe......
Request a trial to view additional results