A Northern District of California judge refused to preliminarily approve a class settlement of Uber customers who used its “Rideshare Services” in which Uber would have paid class members $28.5 million. The court was concerned about several things. First, the settlement divided the settlement fund among class members on a per capita basis, which resulted in the compensation of some members who weren’t injured at the expense of persons who had been injured. Second, ... Keep Reading »
Ninth Circuit Affirms Certification of “No Injury” Wage and Hour Class
On August 31, the Ninth Circuit continued its trend of certifying “no injury” classes, this time in the context of an Agricultural Workers’ Protection Act claim that a Washington state fruit and vegetable farm violated the statute by hiring foreign workers to fill temporary agricultural jobs without informing domestic workers of the availability of the work. The district court certified an “inaccurate information” class and an “equal pay” class. The Ninth Circuit ... Keep Reading »
Disgruntled Timeshare Owner’s Bid for Class Arbitration Thwarted
On August 30, the Northern District of California thwarted a disgruntled timeshare owner’s attempt to arbitrate her dispute against a timeshare developer on a classwide basis. A timeshare purchaser alleged that Wyndham, the timeshare developer, improperly changed her “use year” and demanded an arbitration. Wyndham responded by filing a declaratory judgment action against the purchaser and also filed a motion to compel the purchaser to arbitrate her individual claims and ... Keep Reading »
Lawyers Sanctioned for Seeking to Settle Federal Court Class Action in State Court
Lawyers seeking to settle class actions pending in federal court by dismissing and refiling in state court beware! In two recent orders, a federal judge in the Western District of Arkansas ruled that the attorneys representing a class and defendants alike violated Rule 11 and abused the judicial process by this practice. The court sanctioned the lawyers for the class in the form of a reprimand. It retreated from a formal sanction of the defendants’ lawyers because it was ... Keep Reading »
Tendering Funds to Support Unaccepted Offer of Judgment Still Does Not Moot Case
On July 6, the Sixth Circuit addressed a question apparently left open by the Supreme Court in its recent Campbell-Ewald case. In Campbell-Ewald, the Supreme Court ruled that an unaccepted Rule 68 offer of judgment did not moot class claims when no motion for class certification is pending. A plaintiff who rejects a rule 68 offer of tender extinguishes the offer. The court did not address, however, whether an actual tender of funds to a class plaintiff extinguished ... Keep Reading »
A Tale of Two Decertification Motions
The Seventh and Eighth Circuits both addressed motions to decertify classes the week of July 5—with divergent results. These cases illustrate the deference afforded district courts’ class certification determinations. Both courts refused to find the trial courts’ decertification decisions to constitute an abuse of discretion. They also illustrate the importance of a sensitivity to the requirements of the specific cause of action, which themselves may dictate whether a ... Keep Reading »
Southern District of California Rejects Coupon Class Settlement
Jaret J. Fuente and D. Matthew Allen The Southern District of California rejected a pre-certification class settlement because it provided for an inadequate coupon payment and a tenuous cy pres award, and included a clear sailing attorney fee provision. Plaintiff Hofman alleged that Dutch, LLC sells jeans labeled “Made in the USA” that contain foreign-made components (buttons, rivets, zippers, etc.) in violation of the California Business and Professional Code and the ... Keep Reading »
Supreme Court Steers Clear of Consumer Standing Issue in Spokeo
The Supreme Court has issued its long-awaited decision in Spokeo v. Robins. By a 6-2 vote, the Court reversed the Ninth Circuit decision that a class plaintiff who suffered no actual damages had standing to sue. But it did not address the merits of whether a plaintiff who has suffered no actual damages can nonetheless bring a class action on behalf of other putative class members who equally were not injured. Instead, the Court essentially punted and, in a narrow ... Keep Reading »
The Amount-in-Controversy Requirement Presents an “Obstacle” to CAFA Removal
In Pazol v. Tough Mudder Inc., No. 15-1640, --- F.3d ----, 2016 WL 1638045 (1st Cir. Apr. 26, 2016), the First Circuit analyzed the “reasonable probability” standard that a defendant must satisfy to support CAFA’s $5 million amount-in-controversy removal requirement. See 28 U.S.C. § 1332(d)(2). The putative class action began in Massachusetts state court and stemmed from a decision by the defendant, a promoter of a series of nationwide “obstacle course” races, to move ... Keep Reading »
SCOTUS Denies Review Regarding Pennsylvania Wal-Mart “Rest Break” Class Judgment
On April 4, the United States Supreme Court denied certiorari review of a $188 million class-action judgment returned against Wal-Mart in Pennsylvania state court and later upheld by the Pennsylvania Supreme Court regarding claimed “rest break” and “meal break” violations. Only six plaintiffs testified on behalf of the class, and the plaintiffs’ experts used extrapolated evidence to calculate the total damages sustained (rather than actually determining the total damages ... Keep Reading »
- « Previous Page
- 1
- …
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 7
- 8
- Next Page »