The District of Colorado declined to certify a class in a case against Dollar Rent A Car where the Plaintiff alleged Dollar tricked renters into buying Loss Damage Waiver ("LDW"), supplemental liability insurance ("SLI"), and roadside assistance ("Roadsafe") (collectively "Add-On Products") that they had declined, or charged them without proper consent or contrary to disclosure requirements. Plaintiff alleged Dollar violated the Colorado Consumer Protection Act and ... Keep Reading »
Dismissal With Prejudice Of Single Action In MDL Is Immediately Appealable, SCOTUS Holds
When a putative class action is transferred and consolidated with others for coordinated pretrial proceedings in multidistrict litigation (“MDL”) under 28 U.S.C. § 1407, it ordinarily remains an independent action for purposes of finality under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. Thus, when a district court handling an MDL dismisses without leave to amend a single-count antitrust class action pending therein, the dismissal order brings that action to a close, and it is final and ... Keep Reading »
Northern District of California Adopts Flexible Approach To Analyzing Pre-Certification Standing Issues
The United States District Court for the Northern District of California partially granted and partially denied a motion to dismiss based on the standing of 18 named plaintiffs from 13 different states seeking class certification under the consumer protection and privacy laws of 48 states arising from plaintiffs’ purchases of numerous cell phone models. Plaintiffs sued the software developer of a cell phone network diagnostic tool and numerous mobile device ... Keep Reading »
Florida District Court Rejects Motion To Strike But Allows Pre-Certification Standing Challenge In Snack Food Labeling Case
Before class certification hearings occur in the Southern District of Florida, defendants may not challenge plaintiff's class allegations via Rule 12(f) motions to strike but may challenge plaintiff's standing via motions to dismiss. In Bohlke v. Shearer's Foods, LLC, plaintiff sought to represent a Florida class and alternative nationwide class of purchasers of five flavors of defendant's rice chips. Plaintiff alleged that defendant's "all natural" labels were false ... Keep Reading »
Insurance Balance Billing Class Fails Rule 23’s Requirements
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 »
Eighth Circuit Decertifies Four FDCPA Classes Where District Court Failed to Conduct Rigorous Analysis Required by Wal-Mart Stores, Inc. v. Dukes
The Eighth Circuit recently held that a district court abused its discretion by certifying four classes of Nebraska consumers in an action against a debt collector and its attorneys for alleged violations of the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act (“FDCPA”) and the Nebraska Consumer Protection Act (“NCPA”) based on the defendants’ use of standard-form pleadings and discovery requests in state court collection actions. In so holding, the Eighth Circuit emphasized that the ... Keep Reading »
Ninth Circuit Issues Companion Cases Addressing Evidence Required To Show That The Amount In Controversy Requirement Has Been Met When Challenged on Removal
Through a pair of opinions issued the same day, the Ninth Circuit attempted to clarify the evidence required for a defendant to meet its burden of showing that the amount in controversy exceeds CAFA’s $5 million threshold when a plaintiff moves to remand. In the first opinion, Ibarra v. Manheim Investments, Inc., the plaintiff filed suit in state court seeking to represent a class of employees allegedly injured by the defendant’s "pattern and practice of failing to pay ... Keep Reading »
California’s Inconsistent Treatment of Pre-Dispute Waivers in Arbitration Agreements Will Remain in Place
This week, the U.S. Supreme Court declined to grant review in Iskanian v. CLS Transportation Los Angeles, LLC, leaving in place a California Supreme Court holding that pre-dispute arbitration agreements cannot require employees to waive their right to bring a representative action on behalf of themselves and other "aggrieved employees" under California's Private Attorneys General Act (PAGA). Following U.S. Supreme Court precedent interpreting the Federal Arbitration ... Keep Reading »
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 »
Eleventh Circuit Affirms CAFA-Based Remand Order
Just two weeks after the Supreme Court's decision in Dart Cherokee Basin Operating Co. v. Owens, the Eleventh Circuit affirmed a CAFA-based remand order where the defendant failed to establish by a preponderance of the evidence that the amount in controversy exceeded the jurisdictional threshold for a CAFA removal. Plaintiff, a former Lilly employee, alleged that Lilly failed to make certain incentive payments due her and other similarly situated individuals who had ... Keep Reading »
- « Previous Page
- 1
- …
- 37
- 38
- 39
- 40
- 41
- …
- 50
- Next Page »