D.C. Circuit Rejects Challenge to Keepseagle Settlement

Here is the opinion in Keepseagle v. Vilsack.

An excerpt:

Appellant Timothy LaBatte, a class member in a class action against the United States Department of Agriculture (“USDA”), seeks to intervene in that class action – despite the fact that the action was settled and closed – after his claim for compensation under the terms of the action’s settlement agreement was denied. We affirm the District Court’s determination that it lacked ancillary jurisdiction to hear Labatte’s challenge. We do so because LaBatte’s motion to intervene is unrelated to the underlying lawsuit and because the District Court was not required to hear LaBatte’s motion in order to effectuate its decrees.

This entry was posted in Author: Matthew L.M. Fletcher, Research, trust relationship and tagged , . Bookmark the permalink.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s