Dubin v. Miller
United States District Court for the District of Colorado
132 F.R.D. 269 (1990)
- Written by Mary Phelan D'Isa, JD
Facts
Dubin (plaintiff) sought class certification in an action for fraud against Miller and other officers and directors of a now-bankrupt Colorado corporation (defendants). During a year-plus of procedural motions, delayed responses, and late responses from Dubin’s counsel, the court conditionally certified the class with an admonition that Dubin’s counsel proceed more expeditiously. That charge was not heeded, and days before a scheduled trial date and in response to a motion to decertify the class, Dubin’s counsel, who had not yet sought permission to notify the class of the class action, moved to bifurcate the trial. The trial was rescheduled due to conflict with the judge’s criminal docket, and it was not until more than two weeks after the original trial date that Dubin’s counsel sought court approval to send the class notice of the action. The judge approved the proposed notice, and Dubin’s counsel gave notice to the class while the motion to certify was pending. Dubin’s counsel explained that the notice delay was intentional and part of his strategy to avoid needless expense and that it would have been imprudent to seek the permission to give notice before final certification of the class.
Rule of Law
Issue
Holding and Reasoning (Nottingham, J.)
What to do next…
Here's why 824,000 law students have relied on our case briefs:
- Written by law professors and practitioners, not other law students. 46,300 briefs, keyed to 989 casebooks. Top-notch customer support.
- The right amount of information, includes the facts, issues, rule of law, holding and reasoning, and any concurrences and dissents.
- Access in your classes, works on your mobile and tablet. Massive library of related video lessons and high quality multiple-choice questions.
- Easy to use, uniform format for every case brief. Written in plain English, not in legalese. Our briefs summarize and simplify; they don’t just repeat the court’s language.
