In a class action brought under the Sherman Antitrust Act, the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals held that the NCAA eligibility regulations are subject to antitrust scrutiny. Applying the so-called Rule of Reason, the court held that the longstanding NCAA rule that prohibits colleges from providing the cost of attendance to athletes is “more restrictive than necessary to maintain [the] tradition of amateurism” and therefore violates the Antitrust Act. However, reversing the ... Keep Reading »
Search Results for: rule 68
SCOTUS Accepts Certiorari to Address Article III Standing in “No-Injury” FCRA Class Action
On April 27, the Supreme Court accepted certiorari review in Spokeo, Inc. v. Robins, 13-1339, to address whether consumers can establish Article III standing without actual harm or injury, by alleging a violation of a federal statute. "Spokeo is a people search engine that organizes White Page listings, Public Records and Social Network information to help you safely find and learn about people." Robins filed a putative class action against Spokeo, alleging it is a ... Keep Reading »
Predominance Lacking in Telephone Recording Case Involving Caller Consent
In a class action brought under a California penal statute that prohibits the intentional recording of telephone calls without the consent of all parties on the call, a California district court denied class certification on the grounds that common questions of fact do not predominate among the putative class members. Defendant, a construction materials supplier, received orders from its customers through a dedicated phone line. Prior to 2009, defendant utilized a ... Keep Reading »
Pennsylvania District Court Certifies Class Despite Defendant’s Attempt To “Pick-Off” Class Representatives
A group of registered nurses formerly employed by the Department of Veterans Affairs sued the United States Office of Personnel Management (“OPM”) in a putative class action seeking declaratory and injunctive relief in connection with a recalculation of their retirement annuities that OPM was obligated to perform under the retroactive application of the Veterans Affairs Health Care Programs Enhancement Act (the “Enhancement Act”). Plaintiffs promptly moved to certify a ... Keep Reading »