On December 16, 2020, the Supreme Court granted certiorari in TransUnion LLC v. Ramirez to review the Ninth Circuit’s decision in Ramirez v. TransUnion LLC. Specifically, the Supreme Court granted certiorari for the following question: Whether either Article III or Rule 23 permits a damages class action where the vast majority of the class suffered no actual injury, let alone an injury anything like what the class representative suffered. The Supreme Court’s certiorari ... Keep Reading »
Search Results for: rule 23
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 »
Enough is Enough: The Limits of Invoking Rule 23(c)(1)(C)
On September 4, Judge Rogers of the Northern District of California granted defendants’ motion to strike plaintiffs’ second renewed motion for class certification. The motion was filed by indirect purchaser plaintiffs in this lithium ion batteries antitrust litigation. The “second renewed motion,” which was in fact a third motion for class certification, cited Rule 23(c)(1)(C) as authority. Plaintiffs did not seek leave to file this third motion. In striking the ... Keep Reading »
Must a Plaintiff Representing Unnamed Parties Under California’s Private Attorney General Act Comply with Rule 23’s Requirements?
Must a plaintiff who brings an action under California’s Private Attorney General Act (PAGA) comply with Rule 23’s requirements? Although the Ninth Circuit has not addressed the issue, one California federal district court recently weighed in, reiterating the California Supreme Court’s 2014 decision in Iskanian v. CLS Transp. Los Angeles, LLC that a PAGA action is different than a class action and more akin to a qui tam suit. Plaintiff, a Costco employee, filed suit ... Keep Reading »
401K Not OK: ERISA Class Certified Under Rule 23(b)(1)(B)
A New York district court granted certification in an ERISA class action brought by employees of Deutsche Bank alleging the individual fiduciaries of the company’s retirement plan engaged in self-dealing and mismanagement of its 401K plan. The court certified the class under Rule 23(b)(1)(B), which authorizes class actions when prosecuting separate actions would create a risk of decisions that would be dispositive of the interest of other members not parties to the ... Keep Reading »
Ninth Circuit Tolls Rule 23(f) Deadline, Revives Aphrodisiac Class Action
Within 10 days after the district court decertified a Rule 23(b)(3) aphrodisiac dietary supplement class for failure to show a class wide method for calculating damages, plaintiff orally advised the court of his intention to seek reconsideration. The district court then set a 10-day deadline for filing a motion for reconsideration — in other words, 20 days after the decertification order. Plaintiff complied with the court’s schedule. The district court denied the motion ... Keep Reading »
Defects More Than Cosmetic: Beauty Product Purchasers Fail to Satisfy Rule 23
The Southern District of New York recently denied class certification in a consolidated putative class action against a cosmetics company for breach of contract, false advertising, unfair competition, deceptive acts and practices, and other violations of state law. Plaintiffs alleged the company made false claims regarding its anti-aging products and sought to certify multiple classes of purchases, nationwide and in two states, with additional subclasses based on whether ... Keep Reading »
Eleventh Circuit Holds Rule 23 Trumps State Law Precluding Private Class Actions
The Alabama Deceptive Trade Practices Act’s (ADTPA) restriction on private class actions does not apply in federal court. Federal Rule 23 controls. That’s what the Eleventh Circuit recently held, relying on Shady Grove Orthopedic Associates, P.A. v. Allstate Insurance Co., 559 U.S. 393, 130 S. Ct. 1431, 176 L.Ed.2d 311 (2010). Plaintiff contracted for installation of a wood fence. The manufacturer warranted that the wood was treated and would remain free from rot, ... Keep Reading »
Does Rule 23(e) Require that Settlement Class Members Receive Notice of Modification to Cy Pres Remedy?
The United States District Court for the District of Columbia recently held that a modification to a settlement agreement was not subject to the procedural protections of Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23(e) because it would not "materially hinder" the legal rights of class members. The settlement agreement at issue, entered into between Native American ranchers and farmers and the United States Department of Agriculture, required that the money remaining after the ... Keep Reading »
Sixth Circuit Rejects Rule 23(F) Petition: Comcast Not Necessarily Triggered By Antitrust Class’s Use Of A Single Damages Model For Multiple Theories Of Liability
In an antitrust class action lawsuit, multiple theories of liability often create separable anticompetitive effects that, when combined, can result in aggregated damages, but a plaintiff's model must measure damages attributable only to the liability theory (and resulting anticompetitive effects) accepted for class action treatment. Thus, an antitrust lawsuit involving money damages cannot be certified to proceed as a class action unless the damages sought result from ... Keep Reading »
- 1
- 2
- 3
- …
- 22
- Next Page »