Classified contributors have blogged numerous times (including several times this year) on opinions that tested the boundaries of American Pipe tolling, including those that addressed whether the doctrine applies to claims barred by an applicable statute of repose, successive putative class actions, and cross-jurisdictional litigation. Sometimes, however, litigants forget the well-established rules of American Pipe tolling in their circuit. In a pair of related ... Keep Reading »
Class Notice Online Works Just Fine
In a case involving alleged violations of ERISA and the Mental Health Parity and Addiction Equity Act, the District Court of the Western District of Kentucky certified a class of Anthem Health Plan insureds who were denied coverage or reimbursement for Applied Behavior Analysis, a particular treatment for Autism Spectrum Disorders. The court then ordered plaintiff to submit a proposed draft notice to be sent to class members. The parties agreed (for the most part) on the ... Keep Reading »
Nothing Crafty About Michaels’ Disclosure Under Spokeo
A New Jersey District Court followed Spokeo’s Article III standing analysis and dismissed claims by three putative class representatives against Michaels Stores. Plaintiffs claimed that Michaels’ online employment application violated the Fair Credit Reporting Act (FCRA) and similar New Jersey and California state laws by failing to provide notice of the store’s intent to obtain a background check in a dedicated, stand-alone document. Plaintiffs conceded their ... Keep Reading »
Spokeo Gets Lyft Off
The Northern District of California dismissed a Fair Credit Reporting Act case against Lyft upon finding that plaintiff lacked Article III standing based on the Supreme Court's decision in Spokeo, Inc. v. Robins, 136 S. Ct. 1540 (2016). The court found that plaintiff did not suffer any actual injury, or a real threat of such injury, as a result of Lyft’s alleged FCRA violations. The court’s ruling was consistent with several recent district courts’ decisions based on ... Keep Reading »
Nothing Shady Where State Statutory Language Restricting Class Actions is Clear
Six years ago, the U.S. Supreme Court stated in a plurality opinion that "Rule 23 unambiguously authorizes any plaintiff, in any federal proceeding, to maintain a class action if the Rule's requirements are met" -- even if the same case could not be brought as a class action under state law. Shady Grove Orthopedic Accos., P.A. v. Allstate Ins. Co., 559 U.S. 393, 406 (2010). While the Shady Grove ruling may seem clear when the conflicting state law is purely procedural, ... Keep Reading »
No Repose for Debate on Applicability of American Pipe Tolling
In its seminal 1974 American Pipe opinion, the Supreme Court held that the commencement of a class action tolls the applicable statutes of limitation as to all putative class members who would have been parties had the class been certified. Since then, courts have repeatedly applied American Pipe to toll statutes of limitation but disagreed as to whether the doctrine is based on legal principals under Rule 23 or the equitable power of the courts. The Eleventh Circuit ... Keep Reading »
Tablet Class Damages Model Doesn’t Tabulate … For Now
The Central District of California denied certification of a class that otherwise met the requirements of Rule 23 because the damages model proposed by plaintiff’s expert did not establish a reliable method for calculating classwide damages. Plaintiff sought to certify a class of purchasers of Fuhu’s “Nabi” line of rechargeable tablets for children. Plaintiff claimed that the tablets’ charging capabilities were defective and that Fuhu misrepresented the tablets’ ... Keep Reading »
Missouri District Court Joins the List: Unaccepted Rule 68 Offer Does Not Moot Claims
Yet another court has found that an unaccepted Rule 68 Offer of Judgment will not moot a putative class action, even where the offer purports to satisfy all of plaintiff’s demands. Plaintiffs sued in the Eastern District of Missouri and proposed to represent a class of at least 60 former joint venture general managers of Panera Bread Company whose buyout payments from Panera were allegedly capped at an amount lower than that to which they contractually agreed. Plaintiffs ... Keep Reading »
Seventh Circuit Cleans Up the Law; Holds Rule 68 Offer of Complete Relief Does Not Render Litigation Moot
In a case that began as a putative class action, the Seventh Circuit held that a Rule 68 offer of complete relief does not render litigation moot. Plaintiff in Chapman v. First Index filed a "junk-fax" suit pursuant to the Telephone Consumer Protection Act (TCPA), 47 U.S.C. § 227 et seq., after allegedly receiving two unsolicited and unauthorized faxes from First Index. He demanded $3,000 plus an injunction under § 227(b)(3)(A). Plaintiff proposed to represent a class ... Keep Reading »
A Message From the Eighth Circuit Regarding the TCPA
The purpose of a telephone solicitation, rather than its content, determines whether it is prohibited telemarketing under the Telephone Consumer Protection Act (TCPA), 47 U.S.C. § 227 et seq. That is what the Eighth Circuit determined in a case arising from unsolicited telephone calls with prerecorded messages initiated for the purpose of promoting the motion picture, Last Ounce of Courage. The Golan family, who were registered on federal and state "do not call" ... Keep Reading »