In a Telephone Consumer Protection Act (TCPA) case, the United States District Court for the Southern District of Ohio struck plaintiff’s class action allegations because Plaintiff proposed a “fail-safe” class in which membership was dependent on the validity of the putative class member’s claim. A fail-safe class is impermissible because it includes only those who are entitled to relief. Either the class members win on the merits, or by virtue of losing, they are not in ... Keep Reading »
Search Results for: rule 23
District Court Applies Gulf Oil to Restrict Issuance of Arbitration Agreements to Prospective Class Members
Drivers brought a putative class action suit against Uber Technologies (“Uber”), the licensor of a software application used to connect drivers for hire with passengers, alleging that Uber failed to remit to drivers the full amount of gratuities paid by passengers. The court’s recent decision involved a licensing agreement that, in the wake of pending class actions, was given to prospective drivers who downloaded the app and required that all disputes be resolved ... Keep Reading »
Court Strikes Class Action Allegations Citing Individualized Causation Issues
A Pennsylvania federal district court granted defendant CitiMortgage’s motion to strike class allegations under Rule 23(d)(1)(D), because it was clear from the complaint that plaintiffs could not meet the requirements for maintaining a class action and were unlikely to be able to substantiate their class allegations through discovery. Plaintiffs were homeowners who, after defaulting on their mortgage, commenced a class action against three defendants related to the ... Keep Reading »
Court Rejects Two Common Methods of Proving Reliance on Class-wide Basis
Plaintiffs in a securities fraud class action containing over 2,000 individual investors were unable to convince a New York District Court that the reliance element of their claims was susceptible to a common method of proof for all putative class members thereby precluding certification under Rule 23(b)(3). Plaintiffs alleged that defendants misrepresented the involvement a certain individual, known for his investment expertise, would have in the management of their ... Keep Reading »
California District Court Finds Commonality Lacking Under Dukes Analysis; Denies Certification
The U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California denied certification in a false advertising case brought under California’s False Advertising Law (FAL), Consumers Legal Remedies Act (CLRA) and the Unfair Competition Law (UCL) because the plaintiff failed to satisfy Rule 23(a)’s commonality requirement. The plaintiff alleged that the defendant developed, encouraged, and promoted three Unlimited Download Websites that offered media titles for a one-time ... Keep Reading »
Issue of Gmail Users’ Consent to Google’s Email-Interception Practices Defeats Class Certification
Google recently scored a big victory in its battle against claims that it is illegally intercepting and scanning the content of emails in order to provide personalized advertisements to Gmail users. Plaintiffs in the various lawsuits – which were consolidated for pretrial purposes in the Northern District of California – sought certification of classes including “education” users, who use Gmail provided by their school, as well as other direct and indirect users ... Keep Reading »
Securities Class Actions Receive Increased Scrutiny: District Court Applies “Stringent Standards” Of Dukes And Comcast To Deny Certification
The United States District Court for the Northern District of Texas recently denied certification of a putative securities law class after finding that plaintiff failed to put forth actual facts showing adequacy and predominance, as required to satisfy the “stringent standards” of Rule 23 pursuant to the Supreme Court’s decisions in Wal-Mart Stores, Inc. v. Dukes and Comcast Corp. v. Behrend, as well as the Fifth Circuit’s decision in the securities law context in Berger ... Keep Reading »
California District Court Holds That Named Plaintiff’s Lack Of Credibility On Key Issue Renders Him An Inadequate Class Representative; Denies Certification
The U.S. District Court for the Central District of California denied class certification in a product mislabeling case after holding that named plaintiff lacked credibility on a material issue and, therefore, could not be an adequate class representative under Rule 23(a)(4). Plaintiff’s putative class action complaint alleged that manufacturer Boiron violated, among other laws, the California Unfair Competition Law and the Consumers Legal Remedies Act by misrepresenting ... Keep Reading »
Putative Nationwide Class Of Car Dealers Turns Out To Be A Lemon – Individualized Issues Preclude Certification
The U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Georgia denied plaintiffs’ motion for nationwide class certification because the proposed class did not meet Rule 23’s commonality or predominance requirements. The putative class plaintiffs had entered into agreements granting them rights to distribute the defendant’s cars in the United States. The plaintiffs had paid the defendant’s “application” fees and, in some instances, prepared dealerships to receive new ... Keep Reading »
Classified Monthly: A Roundup of Class Action Decisions From Federal Appellate Courts – March 2024
The Roundup covers notable class action decisions each month from federal appellate courts, as well as notable Supreme Court class action cert petitions. Second Circuit Behrens v. JPMorgan Chase Bank, N.A. – In this decision, the Second Circuit answered a question of first impression for that court: “whether the existence of subject-matter jurisdiction requires a district court to exercise it, even if it is invoked belatedly—on analogy to the rule that a party ... Keep Reading »
- « Previous Page
- 1
- …
- 17
- 18
- 19
- 20
- 21
- 22
- Next Page »