United States Supreme Court Class Action Articles

The latest class action developments and trends in the United States Supreme Court, including news, key cases, and strategies.

Dismissal With Prejudice Of Single Action In MDL Is Immediately Appealable, SCOTUS Holds

When a putative class action is transferred and consolidated with others for coordinated pretrial proceedings in multidistrict litigation (“MDL”) under 28 U.S.C. § 1407, it ordinarily remains an independent action for purposes of finality under 28 U.S.C. § 1291.  Thus, when a district court handling an MDL dismisses without leave to amend a single-count antitrust class action pending therein, the dismissal order brings that action to a close, and it is final and ... Keep Reading »

California’s Inconsistent Treatment of Pre-Dispute Waivers in Arbitration Agreements Will Remain in Place

This week, the U.S. Supreme Court declined to grant review in Iskanian v. CLS Transportation Los Angeles, LLC, leaving in place a California Supreme Court holding that pre-dispute arbitration agreements cannot require employees to waive their right to bring a representative action on behalf of themselves and other "aggrieved employees" under California's Private Attorneys General Act (PAGA). Following U.S. Supreme Court precedent interpreting the Federal Arbitration ... Keep Reading »

Supreme Court Confirms That A Notice Of Removal Requires Only A “Plausible Allegation” That The Amount In Controversy Has Been Met

The Supreme Court has held that a notice of removal requires only a “plausible allegation that the amount in controversy exceeds the jurisdictional threshold,” and confirmed that a notice of removal need not include evidence establishing the amount in controversy.  In Dart Cherokee Basin Operating Co. v. Owens, the plaintiff alleged that defendants, Dart Cherokee Basin Operating Co. and Cherokee Basin Pipeline, LLC, underpaid royalties owed to putative class members and ... Keep Reading »

No Pay Required for Amazon’s Warehouse Workers During Post-Shift Security Screening

On December 9, the Supreme Court held that hourly workers in Amazon warehouses need not be compensated for the time they spent waiting to undergo security screening at the end of their shifts. The case, Integrity Staffing Solutions, Inc. v. Busk, is the Court’s most recent opinion on the issue of compensatory time under the federal Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA). Integrity Staffing Solutions provides staffing for Amazon warehouses nationwide. Hourly warehouse workers ... Keep Reading »

Basic Survives, But Defendants Must Have Opportunity To Show Lack Of Price Impact To Rebut “Fraud-On-The-Market” Presumption Of Reliance Prior To Class Certification

Earlier this week the Supreme Court reaffirmed the validity of the “fraud-on-the-market” presumption of reliance that significantly eases the burden on investors in obtaining certification of private securities fraud class actions, but held that defendants must be permitted an opportunity at the class certification stage to rebut the presumption through direct or indirect evidence showing that the alleged misrepresentations did not impact the stock price. In the more ... Keep Reading »

Supreme Court Accepts Certiorari In CAFA Removal Case

On April 7, 2014, the Supreme Court accepted certiorari review in Dart Cherokee Basin Operating Company LLC v. Owens, No. 13-719, to resolve a circuit split regarding whether the Class Action Fairness Act requires a removing defendant to submit evidence in support of removal at the time of the notice of removal or whether evidence can be submitted later in response to a motion to remand. The United States District Court for the District of Kansas remanded a putative ... Keep Reading »

SCOTUS Defines “Mass Action”

On January 14, 2013, the United States Supreme Court decided Mississippi ex rel. Hood v. AU Optronics Corp., --- U.S. ---, No. 12-1036.  The question presented in that case was whether a suit filed by a state as the sole plaintiff constituted a “mass action” under the Class Action Fairness Act of 2005 where it included a claim for restitution based on injuries suffered by the state’s citizens.  Holding it did not, the Court determined that a “mass action” must involve ... Keep Reading »