Steven Jack Loran v. Furr's/bishop's Inc. And Michael J. Levenson, L.C. Strawn

Fifth Circuit

Steven Jack Loran v. Furr's/bishop's Inc. And Michael J. Levenson, L.C. Strawn

988 F.2d 554, 1993 U.S. App. LEXIS 7775, 1993 WL 91969

CourtCourt of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit

DecidedApril 15, 1993

Docket92-1954

StatusPublished

Cited by7 cases

This text of 988 F.2d 554 (Steven Jack Loran v. Furr's/bishop's Inc. And Michael J. Levenson, L.C. Strawn) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Steven Jack Loran v. Furr's/bishop's Inc. And Michael J. Levenson, L.C. Strawn, 988 F.2d 554, 1993 U.S. App. LEXIS 7775, 1993 WL 91969 (5th Cir. 1993).

Pincite

Opinion

REAVLEY, Circuit Judge:

Steven J. Loran, as class representative, proposed to settle a securities-fraud class-action suit against Furr’s/Bishop’s, Inc. and Michael J. Levinson. Class member L.C. Strawn felt that the settlement’s release provision was too broad and that the district court should insert limiting language in the settlement contract.

Strawn's attorney asked the district court for permission to appear without obtaining local counsel, and explained that Strawn “does not seek to litigate an action in this district, but merely to be permitted to state his objections to a [pending] proposed class action settlement....” Strawn never asked the court for permission to intervene as a party under Fed.R.Civ.P. 24. The district court received Strawn’s written submissions and provided Strawn a hearing, but ultimately refused to insert the language requested by Strawn.

Strawn then filed a Notice of Appeal in this court, and both parties extensively briefed the issues presented by Strawn. But we have no jurisdiction to consider an appeal by a class member who has not attempted to intervene as a named party. See Walker v. City of Mesquite, 858 F.2d 1071, 1075 (5th Cir.1988).

DISMISSED.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

REAVLEY, Circuit Judge:

Steven J. Loran, as class representative, proposed to settle a securities-fraud class-action suit against Furr’s/Bishop’s, Inc. and Michael J. Levinson. Class member L.C. Strawn felt that the settlement’s release provision was too broad and that the district court should insert limiting language in the settlement contract.

Strawn's attorney asked the district court for permission to appear without obtaining local counsel, and explained that Strawn “does not seek to litigate an action in this district, but merely to be permitted to state his objections to a [pending] proposed class action settlement....” Strawn never asked the court for permission to intervene as a party under Fed.R.Civ.P. 24. The district court received Strawn’s written submissions and provided Strawn a hearing, but ultimately refused to insert the language requested by Strawn.

Strawn then filed a Notice of Appeal in this court, and both parties extensively briefed the issues presented by Strawn. But we have no jurisdiction to consider an appeal by a class member who has not attempted to intervene as a named party. See Walker v. City of Mesquite, 858 F.2d 1071, 1075 (5th Cir.1988).

DISMISSED.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

988 F.2d 554, 1993 U.S. App. LEXIS 7775, 1993 WL 91969, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/steven-jack-loran-v-furrsbishops-inc-and-michael-j-levenson-lc-ca5-1993.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack