The United States District Court for the Northern District of California recently granted a defendant’s motion to decertify a class because plaintiff’s damages model was not consistent with his theory of liability as required by the Supreme Court in Comcast Corp. v. Behrend. Plaintiff alleged that defendant’s false and misleading labeling of almond milk products violated California law, bringing claims under California’s Unfair Competition Law, False Advertising Law, and ... Keep Reading »
Archives for December 2014
Third Circuit Weighs In On Burden of Proof and Evidentiary Standards Applicable to Cases Removed Under CAFA
Days before the Supreme Court’s decision addressing the requirements for CAFA notices of removal in Dart Cherokee Basin Operating Co., LLC v. Owens, the Third Circuit addressed the evidentiary requirements for surviving a motion to remand a case removed under CAFA for failure to satisfy CAFA’s numerosity and amount in controversy requirements. Plaintiff in the case sought to represent a class of “hundreds” of individuals injured in common carrier motor vehicle ... Keep Reading »
California District Court Finds that CAFA’s Amount-in-Controversy Requirement was Satisfied; Denies Motion to Remand
The U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California denied plaintiff’s motion to remand, holding that plaintiff’s claim for unpaid wages and overtime satisfied CAFA’s amount-in-controversy requirement. Plaintiff’s class action complaint alleged that Finish Line violated the California Labor Code and Business and Professions Code by, among other things, failing to pay its hourly employees regular and overtime wages on a “regular and consistent basis.” Thus, ... 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 »
Eleventh Circuit Holds Unaccepted Rule 68 Offer To Named Plaintiffs Does Not Moot A Class Action
The Eleventh Circuit recently held that a defendant may not moot a class action through an unaccepted Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 68 offer of complete relief to the named plaintiffs—but not to class members—before the named plaintiffs move to certify the class. In doing so, the Eleventh Circuit joined the majority of circuits that have addressed the same issue. Named plaintiffs filed a class action in state court against Buccaneers Limited Partnership (“BLP”) ... 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 »
Seventh Circuit Rejects Another Settlement With Disproportionate Attorney Fees Compared to Class Member Benefits
The Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals rejected a class action settlement because class counsel would have received generous attorney fees for conferring only meager benefits to the class. Writing for the Court, just as he did a few months earlier in Eubank v. Pella Corp., 753 F.3d 718 (7th Cir. 2014), Judge Posner described this settlement as “a selfish deal between class counsel and defendant” that “disserves the class.” Plaintiffs sued NBTY and Rexall Sundown for ... Keep Reading »
Ninth Circuit Holds California Can’t Double-Dip By Seeking Restitution for Citizens Bound By Class Settlement
In the wake of a nationwide class action settlement of litigation against a manufacturer of a test claimed to accurately predict the gender of a fetus, the State of California (“State”) brought an enforcement action against the manufacturer for restitution for California citizens who purchased the test, as well as for civil penalties and injunctive relief. The defendant manufacturer removed to federal court and sought an injunction under the Anti-Injunction Act, arguing ... Keep Reading »
Ninth and Tenth Circuits Address Removal Under CAFA’s “Mass Action” and “State Action” Provisions
In Corber v. Xanodyne Pharmaceuticals, the Ninth Circuit – on rehearing en banc – examined the applicability of the “mass action” provision of CAFA, which provides federal jurisdiction for any civil action in which monetary relief claims of 100 or more persons are “proposed to be tried jointly.” Pursuant to California Code of Civil Procedure 404.1, plaintiffs moved for coordination of their cases alleging injuries relating to ingestion of a drug ingredient. Defendants ... Keep Reading »