or that there are objectionable trade-offs in terms of relief. See Diaz, 876 F.2d at 1409 (factors do not weigh in favor of notice where claims were dismissed rather than settled). The parties also state that class members have not been prejudiced because the class claims are being dismissed without prejudice so that, even if class members could pursue claims despite the Yeager decision, their rights have not been affected. There is certainly no evidence that the named Plaintiff is compromising claims of the class in order to gain an advantage, since the dismissal is being sought based on an adverse ruling of the Supreme Court of Alabama in the Yeager case, which would be dispositive of the claims in this case. See Brooks v. State Board of Elections, 173 F.R.D. 552 (S.D.Ga.1997) (<HOLDING>). The parties have also stated that there has
holding in a case where a class was certified that there was an absence of collusion since the dismissal based on a string of adverse decisions which had drained the case of legal merit made the dismissal the functional equivalent of an involuntary dismissal holding that in considering dismissal of an appeal the court should exercise discretion to determine whether dismissal is appropriate in the circumstances presented by the case holding that plaintiffs were entitled to vacate final order of dismissal as void when they did not receive the motion for dismissal or notice of the hearing on the order until after the dismissal was entered holding dismissal for failure to comply with rule 8 was dismissal of entire action which was appealable final order holding that a motion to proceed in forma pauperis is dispositive because it is the functional equivalent of an involuntary dismissal