Does the Constitutional Due Process driven analysis set forth in Rule 23 have exceptions?

QUESTIONS PRESENTED Twenty-two (22) years after a class action settlement was finally approved, a District Court revoked an approved class action settlement without notice to absent class members and without the District Court otherwise carrying out a full Due Process driven Rule 23 review. The revoked, approved class action settlement provided class members with substantial benefits and relief such as an immediate enforcement procedure. The new class action settlement eliminated these protections and material terms and imposed a near immediate end date on the agreement. The Petitioners are absent members of the certified class who objected at the final approval hearing and later appealed. The First Circuit affirmed the revocation of an existing, approved class action settlement. This led to a fundamentally different settlement by: (i) imposing a burden on absent class members to prove the replacement settlement is unfair; (ii) finding that a District Court is not required to make findings regarding adequate class representatives and counsel prior to approving a class action settlement; (iii) finding that a settlement can place members in conflict with each other; and (iv) finding that the absent class members are not entitled any notice prior to revoking and substituting in a new class action settlement. The questions presented are: 1. Does the Constitutional Due Process driven analysis set forth in Rule 23 have exceptions? ii QUESTIONS PRESENTED -— Continued 2. Ifso, what exceptions and what circumstances trigger the District Court’s authority to make such exceptions? ili RULE 14.1 STATEMENT In addition to the Petitioner listed in the caption the following individuals were appellants below and are Petitioners here: Lauren Lazaro, Rose Domonoske, Mei Li Costa, Ella Poley, Alyssa Gardner, Lauren Mckeown, Allison Lowe, Tina Paolillo, Eve Durandeau, Madeline Stockfish, and Sonja Bjornson. In addition to the respondent named in the caption the following individuals were Plaintiff Appellees below, and are respondents here: Ellen Rocchio, Nicole Turgeon, Karen Mcdonald, Melissa Kuroda, Lisa Stern, Jennifer Hsu, Jennifer Cloud, Darcy Shearer, Jody Budge, Megan Hull, Catherine Luke, And Kyle Hacket. In addition to the respondents listed in the caption, the following individuals and entities were defendant-appellees below and are respondents here: Brown University, Christina Paxson, as successor to Vartan Gregorian, and Jack Hayes, as successor to David Roach. iv RELATED CASES Cohen v. Brown Univ. (Cohen I), No. 92-0197, U.S. District Court for the District of Rhode Island. Judgment entered December 22, 1992. Cohen v. Brown Univ. (Cohen ID), No. 92-0197, U.S. Court of Appeals for the First Circuit. Judgment Entered December 16, 1993. Cohen v. Brown Univ. (Cohen IID), No. 92-0197, US. District Court for the District of Rhode Island. Judgment entered March 29, 1995. Cohen v. Brown Univ. (Cohen IV), No. 92-0197, U.S. Court of Appeals for the First Circuit. Judgment Entered November 25, 1996. Cohen, et al. v. Brown University et al. No. 03-2125, U.S. Court of Appeals for the First Circuit. Judgment Entered September 24, 2003. Cohen, et al. v. Walsh et al. No. 21-1032 U.S. Court of Appeals for the First Circuit. Judgment Entered October 27, 2021.