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 »
Third Circuit Applies Presumption of Timeliness to Pre-Certification Motion to Intervene as Class Representative
This case concerned a federal antitrust class action involving a proposed class of Class 8 truck purchasers who alleged a conspiracy by several truck transmission suppliers and manufacturers to raise prices by eliminating competition among the manufacturers. At the class certification stage, defendants moved to dismiss the named plaintiff for lack of standing since it was not a direct purchaser of the truck transmissions at issue. Two months later, the named plaintiff’s ... Keep Reading »
Eighth Circuit Privacy Class Action Fails to Clear Second Hurdle
In Carlsen v. GameStop Inc., plaintiff – a paid subscriber to defendant’s online gaming magazine – brought a putative class action lawsuit against defendant for alleged breach of its privacy policy by disclosing plaintiff’s Facebook ID and his browsing information for the defendant’s online content to Facebook. Plaintiff asserted claims for breach of contract, unjust enrichment, money had and received, and violation of Minnesota’s Consumer Fraud Act. Defendant moved to ... Keep Reading »
Another One Bites the Dust: Maryland Federal District Court Dismisses Putative Data Breach Class Action for Lack of Standing
The United States District Court of Maryland recently dismissed a putative class action alleging that CareFirst’s failure to adequately secure the computer hardware storing their customers’ personal information led to two separate data breaches in June 2014 and May 2015. Plaintiffs alleged that CareFirst knew or should have known that a data breach could have occurred because the information stolen is “highly coveted by and a frequent target of hackers.” Plaintiffs also ... Keep Reading »
…And We’re Back! Still No Resurgence of “Picking Off” After Campbell-Ewald
Following an interlocutory appeal, in which the First Circuit ruled that a Rule 68 offer made prior to class certification did not moot the plaintiff’s claim (see here), defendant returned to the Massachusetts district court seeking dismissal on Rule 68 grounds. Defendant had done its homework: relying on the Supreme Court’s January Campbell Ewald decision (see here), defendant had sent plaintiff a certified check for $4,800 and moved to deposit the same amount with the ... Keep Reading »
No Resurgence of “Picking Off” After Campbell-Ewald
We previously reported on two Rule 68 offer of judgment cases: Campbell-Ewald Co. v Gomez, 136 S.Ct. 663 (2016), see Supreme Court Rules Unaccepted Rule 68 Offer of Judgment Cannot Moot Class Action , in which the Supreme Court left open the possibility that an actual tender of the full amount of plaintiff’s claim would moot the claim, and Bais Yaakov v. Graduation Source, 2016 WL 1271693 (S.D.N.Y. March 29, 2016), see Will Tender of Full Amount of Named Plaintiff’s ... Keep Reading »
Limits of Ascertainability Reached in Class Allegations Against Equifax
Plaintiff, hoping to recover from Equifax for issuing a credit report with "incorrect and damaging information," sought to represent a class of "all persons who disputed an Equifax credit report and where Equifax failed to apply the proper and appropriate [Fair Credit Reporting Act, (“FCRA”)] procedures." On defendant's motion to strike these class allegations, the federal district court in New Jersey said, "this Court would never grant a motion for class certification ... Keep Reading »
No Automatic Certification For Robosigning Class
In this multidistrict litigation, plaintiffs sought certification of two classes of Arizona property owners challenging the operation of the Mortgage Electronic Registration Systems (MERS) in transferring the beneficial interest under their deeds of trust. Plaintiffs alleged that these mortgage transactions misrepresented MERS’s authority as a beneficiary, contained false statements, and were robosigned. The court granted defendants’ motion to dismiss and plaintiffs ... Keep Reading »
Arbitration Awards Prove an Obstacle to Class Claims
Two recent decisions illustrate the impact arbitration provisions can have on the availability of classwide relief. In Kaspers v. Comcast Corp., plaintiff, a Comcast customer, refused to pay for certain billed services and had his debt referred to a collection agency. Plaintiff submitted the dispute to the American Arbitration Association (AAA) pursuant to a contractual arbitration provision. When the AAA refused to arbitrate due to an alleged defect in the ... Keep Reading »
How to Handle Claims Brought by a Class Representative Under Laws of a Different State: Lessons from the Northern District of California
Arroyo v. TP-Link USA Corporation (N.D. Cal.) presents a varied opinion on the viability of class claims under California law, particularly as brought by a non-California class representative. Plaintiff, a Florida resident, alleged that defendants made false and misleading statements about the speed and capabilities of their network adapters. Plaintiff brought claims on behalf of a putative class under California’s Consumer Legal Remedies Act (Cal. Civ. Code § 1750 et ... Keep Reading »