Plaintiff filed a putative class action in Arkansas state court against his automobile insurer for alleged failure to pay the full amount it was contractually required to pay for his medical bills following a car accident. Specifically, the defendant insurer allegedly paid a reduced in-network rate comparable to that negotiated by health insurers, which plaintiff argued improperly left him – and a putative class of similarly situated policyholders – to pay the ... Keep Reading »
Search Results for: rule 23
Third Circuit: Strict Ascertainability Optional for Rule 23(B)(2) Class
Although not explicitly set forth in Rule 23, an essential prerequisite of any action under Rule 23 is that there must be an identifiable "class" at the moment of certification. The shorthand term commonly used to refer to this requirement is "ascertainability." Last week the Third Circuit Court of Appeals issued a decision explicitly rejecting an ascertainability requirement for Rule 23(b)(2) classes seeking only injunctive or declaratory relief. The case before the ... Keep Reading »
Ninth Circuit Finds Self-Identification By Class Members Does Not Satisfy Ascertainability Under Rule 23
The Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals recently affirmed a district court’s denial of class certification where a plaintiff failed to propose a plan to ascertain class members and therefore did not satisfy the manageability requirement of Rule 23(b)(3). Plaintiffs alleged that the defendants, a parking company and the City of Laguna Beach, California, had violated the Fair and Accurate Credit Transactions Act (“FACTA”) by improperly printing the expiration dates of credit ... Keep Reading »
West Virginia District Court Certifies Rule 23(b)(3) Class Of Plaintiffs Alleging Violations Of Fair Credit Reporting Act Section 1681(g)
The U.S. District Court for the Southern District of West Virginia certified a Rule 23(b)(3) class, holding that the class was sufficiently ascertainable and satisfied the requirements of Rule 23(b)(3). Plaintiff’s class action complaint alleged that Quicken Loans violated section 1681g(g) of the Fair Credit Reporting Act by failing to provide credit score disclosures “as soon as reasonably practicable” after obtaining the plaintiff consumer’s credit report. Plaintiff ... Keep Reading »
Court Strikes Class Allegations Against Lender and Foreclosure Service Providers for Failure to Satisfy Rule 23(a)(2)’s Commonality Requirement
The Northern District of Illinois recently granted a motion to strike class allegations prior to class discovery. Plaintiff mortgagor alleged, inter alia, that in foreclosure proceedings, defendants engaged in unfair and deceptive business practices in violation of the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act (“FDCPA”) and Illinois Consumer Fraud Act (“ICFA”) by entering and possessing his and putative class members’ homes before the mortgagee had legal possession of the ... Keep Reading »
California District Court Finds Plaintiff’s Proposed Damages Models Insufficient Under Comcast; Denies Certification Under Rule 23(b)(3) But Certifies 23(b)(2) Class
The U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California certified a Rule 23(b)(2) class for injunctive and declaratory relief but denied plaintiff’s motion for class certification under Rule 23(b)(3) because plaintiff failed to present a sufficient damages model as required byComcast v. Behrend, 133 S. Ct. 1426, 1430 (2013). Plaintiff’s putative class action complaint alleged that product labels on 51 varieties of Twinings tea, and statements contained on the ... Keep Reading »
Courts Find Removal Is Not Permitted Under CAFA Where Plaintiff Did Not Plead A Class Action Under Rule 23 Or Comparable State Rule
District Courts continue to shape the boundaries of CAFA jurisdiction in suits that are not pleaded as class actions. For example, the District Court for the Eastern District of Louisiana held that defendants could not rely on the “real party in interest” inquiry articulated in the Supreme Court’s recent decision in Mississippi ex rel. Hood v. AU Optronics Corp., 134 S.Ct. 736 (2014) to create a class action where the State did not plead one. The case arose from ... Keep Reading »
What’s Good for Trial Is Good for Class Certification: Fifth Circuit Rules That Daubert Applies at Class Certification Stage
Class discovery is inherently more limited than normal fact discovery for trial, and litigators understandably approach it in a more narrow fashion than they would trial discovery. The Fifth Circuit recently reminded class action litigators, however, that such tailoring should not be extended to expert discovery. In Prantil v. Arkema Inc., the court joined the Second, Seventh, and Eleventh Circuits in ruling that the Daubert analysis governing the admission of expert ... Keep Reading »
Second Circuit Clarifies Ascertainability Rule, Rejecting “Heightened” Standard of Administrative Feasibility
The Second Circuit recently rejected the "heightened" ascertainability requirement under Rule 23(b)(3), turning aside a challenge to a district court's certification of a securities fraud class action. Instead, the court chose to follow the Sixth, Eighth, and Ninth Circuits by adopting an ascertainability standard that only requires "that a class be defined using objective criteria that establish a membership with definite boundaries." A district court certified two ... Keep Reading »
No Pick-Off, No Problem: How a Pre-Certification Rule 68 Offer Survived (Twice)
A magistrate judge in the United States District Court for the Western District of Pennsylvania denied plaintiff’s motion to strike a Rule 68 offer of judgment served prior to class certification. The Rule 68 offer in this case – unlike those at issue in numerous conflicting opinions culminating in the United States Supreme Court’s 2016 Campbell-Ewald decision – was not an attempt to “pick off” the named plaintiff because it also included the putative class members. ... Keep Reading »
- « Previous Page
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 4
- …
- 22
- Next Page »