1/10/2024 0 Comments Folletttexts class actioHowever, we believe it was not sufficient justification for dismissing the class suit. (There is indication that Barliant's becoming a partner in the law firm of Yaffe & Yaffe (now Yaffe, Mark & Barliant), which represents the plaintiff here, after Judge Barrett's order but before Judge Wosik's order, was considered a change of circumstances. It may be beneficial to the orderly administration of justice for a second judge to set aside an earlier determination of a suitable class action if clearly changed circumstances, and not mere feelings of error, or more complete discovery warranted it that is within the scope of section 57.3(a). Allowing a judge to vacate a class action determination by another judge, three years later, is contrary to the objectives of the statute and fosters uncertainty in the litigation. 211, 231 (1977) (hereafter Forde).) Both sides in an action would benefit from an early determination of the propriety of a class action. ![]() (Forde, Class Actions in Illinois: Toward a More Attractive Forum for this Essential Remedy, 26 De Paul L. ![]() *231 This cures a significant defect in prior Illinois law because this question would in some instances not be reached until after a case had been tried on the merits. The intent is to have the court determine at the earliest possible time the suitability of the case for class action. This order may be conditional and may be amended before a decision on the merits." "As soon as practicable after the commencement of an action brought as a class action, the court shall determine by order whether it may be so maintained and describe those whom the court finds to be members of the class. Section 57.3(a) of the Civil Practice Act (Ill. (2.) That the Complaint herein states a good cause of action."Īlthough the parties, arguing he exceeded his authority, have made an issue of the propriety of Judge Wosik's order, we need not reach that question. "(1.) That this cause is properly filed as a Class Action as to all purchasers from the Defendant billed for transportation `BKPST TRANS-INS' rather than `FOB'. Judge Wosik vacated Judge Barrett's prior order which provided: App.3d 101.) We granted plaintiff leave to appeal. Barliant appealed to the appellate court, which affirmed. After a series of reassignments of the case to other judges, Judge Joseph Wosik, on January 23, 1976, vacated Judge Barrett's order, dismissed the class action, and found no just reason to delay enforcement or appeal of the order. Barrett entered an order, on November 15, 1972, which found that the complaint was properly filed as a class action and stated a cause of action. The defendant's motion to dismiss the complaint was denied. JUSTICE CLARK delivered the opinion of the court:ĭonald Barliant (doing business as Mayuba Book *230 Stores), the plaintiff and an attorney, filed a class action complaint in the circuit court of Cook County against the defendant, Follett Corporation, a book publisher, alleging breach of contract, fraud, and a deceptive trade practice within the meaning of the Uniform Deceptive Trade Practices Act (Ill. ![]() Smith, of counsel), for appellee.Īppellate court reversed circuit court order vacated cause remanded. ![]() Yaffe, of Yaffe, Mark & Barliant, of Chicago, for appellant.īrown & Blumberg, of Chicago (Eugene L. BARLIANT, d/b/a Mayuba Book Stores, Appellant,
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |
AuthorWrite something about yourself. No need to be fancy, just an overview. ArchivesCategories |