Classified Class Action Blog

  • All Topics
  • Contributors
  • About
  • Contact
  • Subscribe

Typicality Class Action Articles

The latest class action developments and trends in typicality, including news, key cases, and strategies.

MDL Court Denies Class Certification of Proposed “NAS Babies” Class

March 2, 2021 by Joseph H. Lang, Jr.

The opioid MDL court (the Northern District of Ohio) recently denied class certification to plaintiffs seeking class certification as guardians of individual children diagnosed at birth with neonatal abstinence syndrome (NAS). The court noted that these children are sometimes referred to colloquially as “NAS babies.” The primary basis for the court’s denial of class certification was its determination that the proposed class failed the test of ascertainability as ... Keep Reading »

Not So Fast! A Class Action Is Not an Appropriate Vehicle to Avoid Your Speeding Ticket

January 9, 2020 by Darnesha Carter and D. Matthew Allen

A federal court in Massachusetts recently denied class status for a group of individuals caught driving in the fast lane. Finding that the named plaintiff failed to demonstrate typicality and predominance, the District of Massachusetts denied certification of a class of plaintiffs who received speeding tickets under a Massachusetts regulation. The plaintiff alleged that the Board of Selectmen of Hingham, Massachusetts, posted and enforced speed limit signs without ... Keep Reading »

No Refund For You! Voluntary Payment Defense Precludes Class Certification in Florida Red Light Camera Case

June 21, 2018 by Brooke Patterson and Clifton R. Gruhn

Florida’s Fifth District Court of Appeal (“Fifth DCA”) upheld a denial of certification in a putative class action seeking refunds of fines paid under a red light camera ordinance, ruling that the application of the voluntary payment defense precluded findings of commonality, typicality, predominance, and superiority. At issue was the City of Orlando’s (“City”) issuance of fines pursuant to an ordinance that allowed for the use of cameras to record vehicles failing to ... Keep Reading »

Putative Class Member’s Spoliation of Evidence Disqualifies Him as a Class Representative

December 21, 2017 by Carlton Fields

A district court recently disqualified a plaintiff from acting as a class representative because his spoliation of evidence rendered him an atypical class member. The plaintiffs allege that casting sand used in creating Jeep Wrangler engine parts seeps into the vehicles’ radiators, creating a sludge that causes heating and cooling issues. During discovery, the defendant, which manufactures Jeep Wranglers, requested one of the putative class representatives to “[w]ithin ... Keep Reading »

Charges by Law Firm-Owned Vendors Challenged in Putative Client Class

December 1, 2017 by Gary M. Pappas and Johanna Clark

Plaintiffs signed engagement letters with the law firm Finkelstein & Partners (the “law firm”) to represent them in two separate personal injury lawsuits on a contingency basis. The contract specifically identified several litigation support vendors who may perform work on the cases, including service of subpoenas, writing client biographies, investigations, photo and video gathering, locating expert witnesses, research, conducting focus groups, and creating trial ... Keep Reading »

401K Not OK: ERISA Class Certified Under Rule 23(b)(1)(B)

November 10, 2017 by Ricardo Rozen and Gary M. Pappas

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 »

Kansas Judge Rejects Discovery From Putative Class Members

August 24, 2017 by Gary M. Pappas and Ricardo Rozen

A magistrate judge in Kansas denied the defendant’s request to conduct discovery of putative class members via a voluntary questionnaire. Plaintiff Hapka filed a class action against home health care provider CareCentrix stemming from a 2016 data breach of employees’ personal information, including wage and tax statements. Plaintiff alleged a fraudulent tax return was filed in her name following the cyberattack and that she continued to be at a heightened risk for tax ... Keep Reading »

Objectively Non-Flushable? The Northern District of California Certifies Consumer Class Regarding Charmin Freshmates

August 22, 2017 by D. Matthew Allen and David L. Luck

Using the familiar “reasonable consumer standard” that applies in many jurisdictions regarding allegedly deceptive sales practices, a judge of the Northern District of California recently certified a class action of California consumers who purchased Charmin/Proctor & Gamble’s “Freshmates” brand of “flushable” bathroom wet-wipes between April 6, 2011, and August 3, 2017. The class claims centered on the allegation that Freshmates were not “flushable” as advertised ... Keep Reading »

A Damages Class Is Certified, but No Standing for Declaratory and Injunctive Class

May 10, 2017 by David L. Luck and D. Matthew Allen

A representative plaintiff who purchased Aveeno sunscreen products and baby bath products brought putative class actions against the products’ manufacturer, Johnson & Johnson, in the United State District Court for the District of Connecticut. Both of plaintiff’s asserted classes challenged Aveeno’s product labeling under the Connecticut Unfair Trade Practices Act (CUTPA) and the similar consumer protection laws of several other states and the District of ... Keep Reading »

TCPA Class Certified Based Largely on “Concrete Injury” Determination

February 9, 2017 by David L. Luck and D. Matthew Allen

Following the United States Supreme Court’s decision in Spokeo Inc. v. Robins, 136 S. Ct. 1540, 1549 (2016) – which held that Article III standing requires a concrete injury, even when an injury has otherwise been established for statutory purposes – there has been a debate as to what constitutes Article III “concrete injury” under the Telephone Consumer Protection Act of 1991 (TCPA), 47 U.S.C. § 227. With certain exceptions, the TCPA creates a statutory cause of ... Keep Reading »

  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • Next Page »

Get Weekly Updates!

2020 Class Action Survey – Now Available!

DOWNLOAD NOW
Carlton Fields Logo A blog focused on the latest class action developments and trends by the attorneys of Carlton Fields.

Search

Topics

Industries/Practices
  • Construction
  • Consumer Finance & Banking
  • Food & Beverage
  • Health Care
  • Insurance
  • Labor, Employment & ERISA
  • Manufacturing & Products
  • Pharmaceutical
  • Privacy & Technology
  • Securities
  • Telecommunications

Substantive/Procedural
  • Arbitration
  • CAFA
  • Certification
    • Adequacy
    • Ascertainability
    • Commonality
    • Numerosity
    • Predominance
    • Superiority
    • Typicality
  • Decertification
  • Settlements
  • Standing
  • Striking of Class Allegations

Courts/Jurisdiction
  • Federal District Courts
  • Federal Circuit Courts of Appeal
  • United States Supreme Court
  • State Courts

Monthly Archives

Recent Articles

  • MDL Court Denies Class Certification of Proposed “NAS Babies” Class
  • What’s Good for Trial Is Good for Class Certification: Fifth Circuit Rules That Daubert Applies at Class Certification Stage
  • One Game, One Stadium: Eleventh Circuit Spikes Collateral Challenge to Tampa Bay Buccaneers Proposed Class Action Settlement

Get Weekly Updates!

Carlton Fields

  • carltonfields.com
  • Practices
  • Industries
  • Class Action Survey

Related Industries/Practices

  • National Class Actions
  • National Trial Practice
  • Appellate & Trial Support
  • Our Class Action Experience

Classified: The Class Action Blog

  • All Topics
  • Contributors
  • About
  • Contact

Classified Logo
© 2014–2021 Carlton Fields, P.A. · Carlton Fields practices law in California as Carlton Fields, LLP · All Rights Reserved · Privacy Policy · Disclaimer

Carlton Fields publications should not be construed as legal advice on any specific facts or circumstances. The contents are intended for general information and educational purposes only, and should not be relied on as if it were advice about a particular fact situation. The distribution of this publication is not intended to create, and receipt of it does not constitute, an attorney-client relationship with Carlton Fields. This publication may not be quoted or referred to in any other publication or proceeding without the prior written consent of the firm, to be given or withheld at our discretion. To request reprint permission for any of our publications, please contact us. The views set forth herein are the personal views of the author and do not necessarily reflect those of the firm. This site may contain hypertext links to information created and maintained by other entities. Carlton Fields does not control or guarantee the accuracy or completeness of this outside information, nor is the inclusion of a link to be intended as an endorsement of those outside sites. This site may be considered attorney advertising in some jurisdictions.