A New York federal district court, after holding an evidentiary hearing, certified a class for alleged violations of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act (“TCPA”). Plaintiff alleged that the defendant, a collection agency, repeatedly called his cell phone using an automated dialing system without his consent, including after being told that he was not the party defendant was trying to reach and after plaintiff had asked to be put on a “do not call” list. Plaintiff ... Keep Reading »
Search Results for: standing
Sixth Circuit Affirms Class Certification in TCPA Case
The Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals affirmed class certification in a case brought under the Telephone Consumer Protection Act (TCPA), 47 U.S.C. § 227 et seq. Pennsylvania-based distributor Lake City Industrial Products engaged Business to Business Solutions (B2B), a “fax-blasting” company, to transmit approximately 10,000 faxes advertising a pipe-thread sealing tape product. American Copper & Brass, a Michigan-based equipment wholesaler with no preexisting ... Keep Reading »
Second Circuit Doubles Down on Rule Preventing Non-Settling Parties from Objecting to Class Settlement
The robustness of the rule preventing non-settling defendants from objecting to a class settlement has received a boost from the Second Circuit. The class settlement at issue involved the claims of investors against a hedge fund manager for damages and restitution of lost funds as a result of Madoff’s Ponzi scheme. Only one provision of the settlement was at stake: whether the settlement could allow class members to submit to the jurisdiction of the district court for ... Keep Reading »
District Court Rejects Nationwide Class, But Certifies California-Only Consumer Class After Conducting Rigorous Analysis of Damages Models Under Comcast
In Werdebaugh v. Blue Diamond Growers, the plaintiff brought suit in the United States District Court for the Northern District of California to certify a nationwide class of consumers who purchased Blue Diamond almond milk products containing allegedly false and deceptive labels. He alleged violations of California’s Unfair Competition Law, False Advertising Law, and Consumers Legal Remedies Act. The plaintiff moved for certification of a class seeking injunctive ... Keep Reading »
SCOTUS Defines “Mass Action”
On January 14, 2013, the United States Supreme Court decided Mississippi ex rel. Hood v. AU Optronics Corp., --- U.S. ---, No. 12-1036. The question presented in that case was whether a suit filed by a state as the sole plaintiff constituted a “mass action” under the Class Action Fairness Act of 2005 where it included a claim for restitution based on injuries suffered by the state’s citizens. Holding it did not, the Court determined that a “mass action” must involve ... Keep Reading »
- « Previous Page
- 1
- …
- 11
- 12
- 13