Classified Class Action Blog

  • All Topics
  • Contributors
  • About
  • Contact
  • Subscribe

Archives for March 2017

No Pick-Off, No Problem: How a Pre-Certification Rule 68 Offer Survived (Twice)

March 31, 2017 by David E. Cannella and Gary M. Pappas

A magistrate judge in the United States District Court for the Western District of Pennsylvania denied plaintiff’s motion to strike a Rule 68 offer of judgment served prior to class certification. The Rule 68 offer in this case – unlike those at issue in numerous conflicting opinions culminating in the United States Supreme Court’s 2016 Campbell-Ewald decision – was not an attempt to “pick off” the named plaintiff because it also included the putative class members. ... Keep Reading »

Play Ball! California Federal Court Reconsiders Order Denying Minor League Baseball Players’ Motion For Class Certification

March 24, 2017 by Clifton R. Gruhn and Jordan Ziegler

The Northern District of California recently renewed hope in a minor league baseball player class action wage dispute by granting the plaintiffs class certification after they narrowed the class. The court had previously denied class certification in July 2016, finding that the experiences of the class members varied too widely to satisfy Rule 23. The original class certification motion sought to certify “classes consisting of ‘[a]ll persons who under a Minor League ... Keep Reading »

Two Second Circuit Cases, Two Applications of Campbell-Ewald, Two Different Results, Three Weeks Apart

March 24, 2017 by Clifton R. Gruhn and Gail Kamal

Within roughly three weeks, the Second Circuit issued two opinions applying the Supreme Court’s Campbell-Ewald Co. v. Gomez decision to class action cases involving Rule 68 offers of judgment. On February 15, 2017, in Leyse v. Lifetime Entertainment Services, LLC, the Second Circuit upheld entry of judgment in a case brought by a plaintiff individually and on behalf of a putative class alleging violations under the Telephone Consumer Protection Act (TCPA). The plaintiff ... Keep Reading »

New York District Court Flushes Nationwide Class, Permits New York Classes to Go Forward

March 22, 2017 by Gail Kamal and Paul G. Williams

In three related actions before the Eastern District of New York, consumer plaintiffs who purchased moist toilet wipes manufactured and produced by Kimberly-Clark and sold by Costco alleged that defendants mislabeled the wipes as “flushable.” The court denied certification of a nationwide class, but did certify three New York class actions all involving New York law and New York purchases but different defendants and a different product. The court declined to certify ... Keep Reading »

A Not-So-Modest Proposal: Class Action Changes Could Have Big Impact

March 15, 2017 by Ben V. Seessel, Christine A. Stoddard and Kristin Ann Shepard

Like many things these days, the legal landscape is changing. One target is class action litigation. Some important new proposals have the potential to dramatically alter class actions in the near future. In particular, these changes would impact class certification and the settlement process. Rule 23 Amendments First, a spate of amendments may bring changes to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23. The comment period on the amendments closed on February 15th and the ... Keep Reading »

Get Weekly Updates!

2018 Class Action Survey – Now Available!

Start Reading
Carlton Fields Logo A blog focused on the latest class action developments and trends by the attorneys of Carlton Fields.

Search

Topics

Industries/Practices
  • Construction
  • Consumer Finance & Banking
  • Food & Beverage
  • Health Care
  • Insurance
  • Labor, Employment & ERISA
  • Manufacturing & Products
  • Pharmaceutical
  • Privacy & Technology
  • Securities
  • Telecommunications

Substantive/Procedural
  • Arbitration
  • CAFA
  • Certification
    • Adequacy
    • Ascertainability
    • Commonality
    • Numerosity
    • Predominance
    • Superiority
    • Typicality
  • Decertification
  • Settlements
  • Standing
  • Striking of Class Allegations

Courts/Jurisdiction
  • Federal District Courts
  • Federal Circuit Courts of Appeal
  • United States Supreme Court
  • State Courts

Monthly Archives

Recent Articles

  • Illinois Supreme Court Finds No Actual Harm Needed to Sue Under State’s Biometric Privacy Statute
  • No Standing, No Settlement?
  • Ninth Circuit Says Local Rule 90-Day Deadline to File Class Certification Motion Incompatible With Federal Rule 23

Get Weekly Updates!

Carlton Fields

  • carltonfields.com
  • Practices
  • Industries
  • Class Action Survey

Related Industries/Practices

  • National Class Actions
  • National Trial Practice
  • Appellate & Trial Support
  • Our Class Action Experience

Classified: The Class Action Blog

  • All Topics
  • Contributors
  • About
  • Contact

Classified Logo
© 2014–2019 Carlton Fields Jorden Burt, P.A. · Carlton Fields practices law in California as Carlton Fields Jorden Burt, LLP · All Rights Reserved · Privacy Policy · Disclaimer

Carlton Fields publications should not be construed as legal advice on any specific facts or circumstances. The contents are intended for general information and educational purposes only, and should not be relied on as if it were advice about a particular fact situation. The distribution of this publication is not intended to create, and receipt of it does not constitute, an attorney-client relationship with Carlton Fields. This publication may not be quoted or referred to in any other publication or proceeding without the prior written consent of the firm, to be given or withheld at our discretion. To request reprint permission for any of our publications, please contact us. The views set forth herein are the personal views of the author and do not necessarily reflect those of the firm. This site may contain hypertext links to information created and maintained by other entities. Carlton Fields does not control or guarantee the accuracy or completeness of this outside information, nor is the inclusion of a link to be intended as an endorsement of those outside sites. This site may be considered attorney advertising in some jurisdictions.