context: These cardholders have no other realistic source of information regarding this litigation. Thus, in light of the cardholders' dependence on defendants for their future credit needs and information, this Court finds that Chase's and Citibank's actions are potentially coercive and improper.
citation_a.signal: see
citation_a.identifier: 2001 WL 1035132, at *4
citation_a.parenthetical: "[A] finding of potential coercion is warranted here," because "the potential class members depend upon the defendant for information, supplies, and credit."
citation_a.sentence: See Ralph Oldsmobile, 2001 WL 1035132, at *4 (“[A] finding of potential coercion is warranted here,” because “the potential class members depend upon the defendant for information, supplies, and credit.”); see also Kleiner, 751 F.2d at 1203 (“Unsupervised, unilateral communications with the plaintiff class sabotage the goal of informed consent by urging exclusion on the basis of a one-sided presentation of the facts, without opportunity for rebuttal.”); Hampton Hardware, 156 F.R.D. at 633 (noting that because the defendant and potential class members were involved in an on-going business relationship, there was a potential for coercion).
citation_b.signal: see also
citation_b.identifier: 751 F.2d 1203, 1203
citation_b.parenthetical: "Unsupervised, unilateral communications with the plaintiff class sabotage the goal of informed consent by urging exclusion on the basis of a one-sided presentation of the facts, without opportunity for rebuttal."
citation_b.sentence: See Ralph Oldsmobile, 2001 WL 1035132, at *4 (“[A] finding of potential coercion is warranted here,” because “the potential class members depend upon the defendant for information, supplies, and credit.”); see also Kleiner, 751 F.2d at 1203 (“Unsupervised, unilateral communications with the plaintiff class sabotage the goal of informed consent by urging exclusion on the basis of a one-sided presentation of the facts, without opportunity for rebuttal.”); Hampton Hardware, 156 F.R.D. at 633 (noting that because the defendant and potential class members were involved in an on-going business relationship, there was a potential for coercion).