fairness hearing in Alabama

2002A copy of the entire Remedy Order is found as an appendix to Chief Justice Hooper’s dissent in Ex parte James, 713 So.2d 869, 923 (Ala.1997).

2002A copy of the entire Remedy Order is found as an appendix to Chief Justice Hooper's dissent in Ex parte James, 713 So.2d 869, 923 (Ala.1997).

2007See Barnhill, [386 So.2d at] 752; Woolwine v. Woolwine, 519 So.2d 1347, 1350 (Ala.Civ.App.1987).

1996See Barnhill , at 752 ; Woolwine v. Woolwine , 519 So.2d 1347 , 1350 (Ala.Civ.App. 1987).

2017With the objectors here having availed themselves of those opportunities, we identify no abuse of discretion or due process denial in that portion of the district court's scheduling order relating to the fee motion." See also Keil , 862 F.3d at 705 (holding that the trial court erred in closing objections before class counsel's attorney-fee application was filed but that error was harmless because the objectors subsequently had an opportunity to respond to the specific arguments contained within class counsel's fee application).

2012See Knight, 469 F.Supp.2d at 1033 .

1997Class counsel confined to settlement negotiations could not use the threat of litigation to press for a better offer . . . and the court would face a bargain proffered for its approval without benefit of adversarial investigation . . . ." Amchem , ___ U.S. at ___, 117 S.Ct. at 2248-49 (emphasis added) (citations omitted). 4 *Page 354 The Supreme Court conducted a rigorous analysis and specifically held that the district court had erred in summarily certifying the class, because the distinct interests of certain class members were not adequately represented by the named plaintiffs. 5 The potent

1997See Root v. City of Mobile , 592 So.2d 1051 (Ala. 1992) (stating that one of the purposes of intervention is to prevent the would-be intervenor from suffering prejudice from the outcome of the proceeding that it seeks to enter).