CLICK HERE FOR FULL TEXT |
WAYSIDE CHURCH, an Illinois, Not-For-Profit
(Ecclesiastical) Corporation, individually and on
behalf of a class of all others similarly situated;
HENDERSON HODGENS, Van Buren County,
individually and on behalf of a class of all others
similarly situated, et al.,
Plaintiffs-Appellees,
v.
VAN BUREN COUNTY, MICHIGAN, in its individual
Michigan municipal capacity and on behalf of a class
of all other Michigan counties similarly situated, et al.,
Defendants-Appellees,
VISSER AND ASSOCIATES, PLLC; DONALD RAY
VISSER; DONOVAN VISSER,
Intervening Appellants. |
No. 23-1471 |
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Western District of Michigan at Grand Rapids.
No. 1:14-cv-01274—Paul Lewis Maloney, District Judge.
Argued: March 21, 2024
Decided and Filed: June 6, 2024
Before: KETHLEDGE, READLER, and BLOOMEKATZ, Circuit Judges.
_________________________
OPINION
_________________________
KETHLEDGE, Circuit Judge. In putative class actions, a class comes into existence only
when the court actually certifies one in an order entered under Civil Rule 23(c). Before then, the
potential members of the putative class are merely that—and lawyers other than putative class
counsel are generally free to communicate truthful, non-misleading information to those
potential class members. But a lawyer may lose that freedom if, in making those
communications, the lawyer violates ethical rules.
At issue here is a protective order in which the district court barred Visser and
Associates, PLLC (“Visser”), from communicating with potential class members in a putative
class action that is now pending before the court. Visser’s communications with members of the
potential class were not misleading. But Visser solicited named plaintiffs, in violation of an
ethical rule, and later misled the court itself. For those reasons, we affirm the district court’s
order. |
|