Abigail Walsh, et al. v. Amy Cohen, Individually and on Behalf of All Others Similarly Situated, et al.

Twenty-two (22) years after a class action settlement was finally approved, a District Court revoked an approved class action settlement without notice to absent class members and without the District Court otherwise carrying out a full Due Process driven Rule 23 review. The revoked, approved class action settlement provided class members with substantial benefits and relief such as an immediate enforcement procedure. The new class action settlement eliminated these protections and material terms and imposed a near immediate end date on the agreement. The Petitioners are absent members of the certified class who objected at the final approval hearing and later appealed. The First Circuit affirmed the revocation of an existing, approved class action settlement. This led to a fundamentally different settlement by: (i) imposing a burden on absent class members to prove the replacement settlement is unfair; (ii) finding that a District Court is not required to make findings regarding adequate class representatives and counsel prior to approving a class action settlement; (iii) finding that a settlement can place members in conflict with each other; and (iv) finding that the absent class members are not entitled any notice prior to revoking and substituting in a new class action settlement. The questions presented are: 1. Does the Constitutional Due Process driven analysis set forth in Rule 23 have exceptions?