The United States District Court for the Northern District of California recently clarified the criteria for removal of a securities class action filed in state court under the Securities Act of 1933, 15 U.S.C. §§ 77a, et seq. (the “Securities Act”). Under the Securities Act’s anti-removal provision, state and federal courts generally have concurrent jurisdiction over Securities Act claims, but a Securities Act claim initially filed in state court cannot be removed to ... Keep Reading »
CAFA Jurisdiction: Cases Consolidated in California Cannot be Split by the Local Controversy Exception
Assuming its other requirements are satisfied, the local controversy exception to CAFA jurisdiction requires a district court to remand a class action if, during the three-year period preceding the filing of that action, another class action was filed asserting the same or similar factual allegations against any of the defendants on behalf of the same or other persons. But what happens when the class action, prior to its removal, was actually consolidated with the ... Keep Reading »
CAFA Local Controversy Exception Established Through Sampling and Statistics
An Illinois federal district court recently credited sampling data as evidence sufficient to establish the citizenship of putative class members for purposes of invoking the local controversy exception to CAFA jurisdiction. Plaintiffs filed a putative class action lawsuit in Illinois state court alleging that their property is being contaminated by silt particles released from defendants’ steel mill facility in Granite City, Illinois. They asserted common law claims ... Keep Reading »
Ninth Circuit Strictly Construes “Single Local Event” Exception to CAFA Jurisdiction for Mass Actions
In a recent decision, the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals strictly construed the "single local event" exception to federal jurisdiction under CAFA as not encompassing "events or occurrences" that are of a continuing nature. Plaintiffs are Washington residents who filed a complaint in state court alleging that Boeing contaminated their groundwater and, together with its environmental remediation contractor, Landau, did not properly investigate, remediate, and clean up ... Keep Reading »
Question Certified To Second Circuit: Does The Court Or The Arbitrator Decide Whether An Arbitration Agreement Permits Class Arbitration?
In the Second Circuit, as in other jurisdictions, only exceptional circumstances will justify a departure from the basic policy of postponing appellate review until after the entry of a final judgment. A New York federal district court recently encountered such circumstances in connection with a motion to certify an interlocutory appeal of an order compelling arbitration. Plaintiffs filed a demand for class arbitration and defendants filed a competing motion to compel ... Keep Reading »
Sixth Circuit Rejects Rule 23(F) Petition: Comcast Not Necessarily Triggered By Antitrust Class’s Use Of A Single Damages Model For Multiple Theories Of Liability
In an antitrust class action lawsuit, multiple theories of liability often create separable anticompetitive effects that, when combined, can result in aggregated damages, but a plaintiff's model must measure damages attributable only to the liability theory (and resulting anticompetitive effects) accepted for class action treatment. Thus, an antitrust lawsuit involving money damages cannot be certified to proceed as a class action unless the damages sought result from ... Keep Reading »
Third Circuit: Strict Ascertainability Optional for Rule 23(B)(2) Class
Although not explicitly set forth in Rule 23, an essential prerequisite of any action under Rule 23 is that there must be an identifiable "class" at the moment of certification. The shorthand term commonly used to refer to this requirement is "ascertainability." Last week the Third Circuit Court of Appeals issued a decision explicitly rejecting an ascertainability requirement for Rule 23(b)(2) classes seeking only injunctive or declaratory relief. The case before the ... Keep Reading »
Division I Athlete Commences Collective Action Seeking Pay For Play
A complaint recently filed in the Southern District of Indiana alleges that the NCAA and its Division I Member Schools have jointly agreed and conspired to engage in a widespread pattern, policy, and practice of failing to pay division I student athletes in violation of the wage-and-hour provisions of the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA). Samantha Sackos, a former division I collegiate soccer player who played at the University of Houston, claims that she, and all ... Keep Reading »
California District Court Certifies “Not Inherently Unascertainable” Consumer Class
In addition to the explicit Rule 23(a) requirements of numerosity, commonality, typicality, and adequacy of representation, an implied prerequisite to certification is that the class must be sufficiently definite: that is, the party seeking certification must demonstrate that an identifiable and ascertainable class exists. A class is ascertainable if it is defined by objective criteria and is sufficiently definite so that it is administratively feasible to determine ... Keep Reading »
Security Guards Unable To Secure Certification Without Commonality
A California federal district court recently denied a motion for class certification because the evidence presented in connection with the motion refuted plaintiffs’ attempted showing of commonality through uniform exposure to unlawful corporate policies. Paragon provides security services to hundreds of federal government sites throughout California under contracts with the U.S. Department of Homeland Security’s Federal Protective Services. The company was sued by ... Keep Reading »