In yet another strongly-worded opinion, the Seventh Circuit rejected the proposed settlement of a Walgreens’ shareholder strike suit in which the class obtained “worthless” supplemental disclosures but class counsel received generous fees. Judge Posner authored the opinion, as he did in Person v. NBTY, Inc., 772 F.3d 778 (7th Cir. 2014) and Eubank v. Pella Corp, 753 F.3d 718 (7th Cir. 2014). He described the practice of settling “deal litigation” like this that yields ... Keep Reading »
Third Circuit Rejects Inflated-Value Theory of Damages, Declines to Certify Law School Tuition Class
The Third Circuit recently affirmed the denial of class certification in a suit alleging that a law school made misrepresentations about the employment status of its graduates, thereby inducing students to pay inflated tuition in violation of the New Jersey and Delaware consumer fraud statutes. Much of the decision centered on damages; plaintiffs claimed they could show damages on a class-wide basis by estimating the amount by which tuition was inflated due to the ... Keep Reading »
Lawyers Sanctioned for Seeking to Settle Federal Court Class Action in State Court
Lawyers seeking to settle class actions pending in federal court by dismissing and refiling in state court beware! In two recent orders, a federal judge in the Western District of Arkansas ruled that the attorneys representing a class and defendants alike violated Rule 11 and abused the judicial process by this practice. The court sanctioned the lawyers for the class in the form of a reprimand. It retreated from a formal sanction of the defendants’ lawyers because it was ... Keep Reading »
“Placeholder” Motions to Certify are Unnecessary after Campbell-Ewald According to South Carolina District Court
Relying on the Supreme Court’s 2016 opinion in Campbell-Ewald, the United States District Court for the District of South Carolina ruled that a class action plaintiff need not file a “placeholder” motion to certify to avoid a defendant’s attempt to “pick-off” the plaintiff and moot the class with a Rule 68 Offer of Judgment (OJ). Plaintiff filed its putative class action complaint alleging violations of the Telephone Consumer Practices Act and immediately sought ... Keep Reading »
Eleventh Circuit’s Liberal Reading of Bonner Mall a Game Changer for Class Actions?
An Eleventh Circuit panel recently vacated two district court orders after sending the parties to mediation, and after the parties’ conditioned settlement on vacatur of the orders. In Hartford Casualty Insurance Company v. Crum & Forster Specialty Insurance Company, after being ordered to mediation a second time by the appellate panel, the parties reached a settlement contingent on the district court’s vacating its orders on summary judgment and attorney’s fees. On ... Keep Reading »
Tendering Funds to Support Unaccepted Offer of Judgment Still Does Not Moot Case
On July 6, the Sixth Circuit addressed a question apparently left open by the Supreme Court in its recent Campbell-Ewald case. In Campbell-Ewald, the Supreme Court ruled that an unaccepted Rule 68 offer of judgment did not moot class claims when no motion for class certification is pending. A plaintiff who rejects a rule 68 offer of tender extinguishes the offer. The court did not address, however, whether an actual tender of funds to a class plaintiff extinguished ... Keep Reading »
A Tale of Two Decertification Motions
The Seventh and Eighth Circuits both addressed motions to decertify classes the week of July 5—with divergent results. These cases illustrate the deference afforded district courts’ class certification determinations. Both courts refused to find the trial courts’ decertification decisions to constitute an abuse of discretion. They also illustrate the importance of a sensitivity to the requirements of the specific cause of action, which themselves may dictate whether a ... Keep Reading »
Declined: Second Circuit Panel Shreds Visa and MasterCard Antitrust Settlement
A Second Circuit panel rejected the settlement reached between defendants Visa, MasterCard, and various banks, and plaintiffs, approximately 12 million merchants who alleged the principally identical network rules of Visa and MasterCard were anti-competitive in contravention of Section 1 of the Sherman Act. The Second Circuit held that class plaintiffs were inadequately represented in violation of Rule 23(a)(4) and the Due Process Clause. After nearly 10 years of ... Keep Reading »
Court Orders Additional Notice to Class Regarding Counsel’s Request for Fees Based on Work Performed Following Initial Fee Award
The Northern District of Illinois vacated its grant of fees to class counsel for work performed following an initial fee award, finding that Rule 23(h) required notice to the class regarding counsel’s new fee request, even though the total attorneys’ fees awarded were within the range disclosed in the original class notice. As discussed in a prior post, the Seventh Circuit affirmed the initial award of fees to class counsel, notwithstanding that the settlement included a ... Keep Reading »
Another One Bites the Dust: Maryland Federal District Court Dismisses Putative Data Breach Class Action for Lack of Standing
The United States District Court of Maryland recently dismissed a putative class action alleging that CareFirst’s failure to adequately secure the computer hardware storing their customers’ personal information led to two separate data breaches in June 2014 and May 2015. Plaintiffs alleged that CareFirst knew or should have known that a data breach could have occurred because the information stolen is “highly coveted by and a frequent target of hackers.” Plaintiffs also ... Keep Reading »
- « Previous Page
- 1
- …
- 24
- 25
- 26
- 27
- 28
- …
- 50
- Next Page »