The Town of Lexington, Massachusetts filed a putative class action in 2012 on behalf of itself and alleged similarly situated Massachusetts school districts that have one or more buildings with airborne polychlorinated-biphenyl (PCB) levels above the public health levels established by the EPA. From the outset of the litigation, defendants argued this proposed class was not ascertainable, as implicitly required by Rule 23, because it was impossible to identify the class ... Keep Reading »
Fifth Circuit Affirms Certification of Electronic Funds Transfer Act Class
In a case similar to its late-2014 decision in Mabary v. Home Town Bank, N.A., 771 F.3d 820 (5th Cir. 2014), the Fifth Circuit recently affirmed certification of a class of consumers who were charged a fee for using an automated teller machine (“ATM “) that allegedly lacked a fee notice on its exterior, in violation of the Electronic Funds Transfer Act (“EFTA”), 15 U.S.C. § 1693b(d)(3) (2011). See Frey v. First Nat. Bank Southwest, No. 13–10375, --- F. App’x ---, 2015 ... Keep Reading »
Dismissal With Prejudice Of Single Action In MDL Is Immediately Appealable, SCOTUS Holds
When a putative class action is transferred and consolidated with others for coordinated pretrial proceedings in multidistrict litigation (“MDL”) under 28 U.S.C. § 1407, it ordinarily remains an independent action for purposes of finality under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. Thus, when a district court handling an MDL dismisses without leave to amend a single-count antitrust class action pending therein, the dismissal order brings that action to a close, and it is final and ... Keep Reading »
The Eleventh Circuit Reverses CAFA-Based Remand Order
On June 5, 2014, the Eleventh Circuit decided in favor of Fifth Third Bank on its appeal of a district court order remanding a putative class action to Florida state court. The basis for the remand order had been the district court’s determination that certain of the claims asserted in the removed complaint were legally insufficient and thus the damages claimed thereunder did not satisfy the $5,000,000 amount-in-controversy requirement imposed under the Class Action ... Keep Reading »