The Illinois’ Biometric Information Privacy Act (740 ILCS 14/1 et seq.) (BIPA) requires that companies obtain written consent and disclose how they collect, retain, disclose and destroy biometric identifiers such as retina or iris scans, fingerprints, voiceprints, scans of hand or face geometry, or other biometric information from the public. BIPA provides “aggrieved” individuals a private right of action to sue, which if successful, could result in liability up to ... Keep Reading »
No Standing, No Settlement?
In a recent decision, the Eighth Circuit weighed in on the requirement that federal courts assess Article III standing before approving a settlement agreement. In the case at issue, plaintiff filed a putative class action for purported violations of the Fair Credit Reporting Act (“FCRA”) against a data company in state court. Defendant removed to the District Court for the Western District of Missouri. Shortly after the parties reached a tentative settlement ... Keep Reading »
Ninth Circuit Says Local Rule 90-Day Deadline to File Class Certification Motion Incompatible With Federal Rule 23
In a case with potentially nationwide ramifications, the Ninth Circuit reversed a California district court’s decision striking a motion for class certification as untimely, finding the district court’s local rule requiring class certification motions be filed within 90 days of the complaint was inconsistent with Federal Rule of Civil Procedure Rule 23. Several other districts, including the Northern District of Georgia, the Northern District of Texas, and the Middle ... Keep Reading »
If at First You Don’t Succeed, Try Another CAFA Exception
A Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals Panel recently affirmed a district court order remanding a putative class action to state court after the defendants' initial removal under CAFA. The case involved claims on behalf of users of the Golden Gate Bridge against three defendants for violations of California's privacy statutes concerning the collection and sharing of personally identifiable information. Specifically, the plaintiffs alleged that after collecting information of ... Keep Reading »
Belch! Ocean Spray Price Premium Damages Model Passes Comcast Scrutiny
The Southern District of California certified a food labeling class against Ocean Spray Cranberries, Inc. based in part upon a price premium damages model developed by an aptly named Dr. Belch. The plaintiff, a self-proclaimed “health coach” and “label guru,” alleged Ocean Spray misrepresented that many of its juice products contained no artificial flavors when in fact they contained malic and fumaric acids, synthetic chemicals that simulate the advertised flavors. She ... Keep Reading »
Third Circuit Ascertainability Requirement Satisfied in FDCPA Class Against Law Firm
Our prior blogs have discussed the Third Circuit’s “rigorous” ascertainability requirement for 23(b)(3) classes here and here. We have also explored how district courts in the Circuit, such as the Eastern District of Pennsylvania, have denied certification in reliance on that heightened standard. A recent E.D. Pa. opinion demonstrates that all is not lost for putative Third Circuit class actions when the proposed class is readily ascertainable based on objective criteria ... Keep Reading »
The Bitter and the Sweet
On October 3, the Eleventh Circuit Court of Appeals affirmed the district court’s approval of a class settlement, an award of attorney’s fees to class counsel, and the provision of an incentive award for the class representative. The court affirmed in the face of objections to the class representative’s Article III standing, the notice pursuant to Rule 23(h), the award of attorney’s fees, and the incentive award to the class representative. The basic background is as ... Keep Reading »
Don’t Count Your Chickens – Or State Citizens for CAFA Exceptions – Before They Hatch
The Ninth Circuit vacated a remand order implicating the local and home-state controversy exceptions to CAFA jurisdiction in a putative class action by former California resident employees of Kentucky Fried Chicken (KFC) for state wage-and-hour law violations. The court ruled that the plaintiffs did not meet their burden to prove that “greater than two-thirds of proposed class members” were residents of California to invoke the exceptions. Originally filed in ... Keep Reading »
No Injury, No Problem?: The First Circuit Weighs in on Certification Where Absent Class Members Lack Harm
In Tyson Foods, the Supreme Court declined to resolve the issue of whether a class may be certified if it contains members who were not injured and have no legal right to damages. Dealing with this increasingly common issue in class action litigation, the First Circuit recently summarized circuit precedent on the issue – and ultimately reversed a district court decision certifying a class that contained class members who had not suffered any injury. Plaintiffs filed ... Keep Reading »
A Treat for Plaintiffs’ Lawyers: Middle District of Florida Finds Bristol-Myers Squibb Inapplicable to Class Actions
As we previously reported, courts continue to sift through the unsettled law left in the wake of the U.S. Supreme Court’s decision in Bristol-Myers Squibb v. Superior Court of California. The decision involved a mass tort action in which the California Supreme Court asserted specific personal jurisdiction over the claims of non-resident plaintiffs who were allegedly injured outside the state of California. The U.S. Supreme Court disagreed, holding that the exercise of ... Keep Reading »
- 1
- 2
- 3
- …
- 39
- Next Page »