The Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals vacated a decision declining to certify a consumer class against IKO Manufacturing, in which the district court wrote that “commonality of damages” is essential, reasoning that the district court had incorrectly read Comcast Corp. v. Behrend, 133 S. Ct. 1426 (2013), and Wal-Mart Stores, Inc. v. Dukes, 131 S. Ct. 2541 (2011), to require proof “that the plaintiffs will experience common damage and that their claimed damages are not ... 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 »
DC Circuit Holds Named Plaintiff Who Settles Individual Claims Retains Standing To Appeal Denial Of Class Certification
In Stephens, two former pilots brought a putative class action lawsuit against their employer airline and their retirement plan, alleging that a delay in paying retirement benefits and failure to pay interest during the delay violated the Employee Retirement Income Security Act (“ERISA”). Defendants maintained that the delay was necessary to calculate the amount of benefits where a beneficiary elected to receive a lump sum rather than a monthly annuity. After the ... Keep Reading »
11th Affirms Dismissal of FDCPA Class Action Based on Law Firm Collection Letter
The Eleventh Circuit has affirmed the dismissal of a putative class action brought under the FDCPA, 15 USC § 1692, against a law firm for sending a letter to a homeowner in default. Specifically, the letter did the following: stated that the law firm represented the interests of the lender, and that the homeowner could dispute the validity of the debt within 30 days of receipt of the letter; stated that failure to dispute within that period would result in the ... Keep Reading »
Lack Of Predominance, Superiority, And Ascertainability Foreclose Mortgagors’ Proposed Class Action Alleging Kickbacks In Violation Of RESPA
The Central District of California denied certification of a putative nationwide class of mortgagors, holding that numerous individualized issues precludeda finding of predominance, superiority, or ascertainability. In particular, the plaintiffs alleged that defendant’s subsidiary escrow companies violated the Real Estate Settlement Procedures Act’s kickback prohibition by accepting payments from delivery companies, such as UPS, FedEx, and OnTrac, in exchange for ... Keep Reading »
California District Court Denies Certification of Putative Class of Plaintiffs Alleging Violations of the Video Privacy Protection Act
The U.S. District court for the Northern District of California denied plaintiffs’ motion for class certification because the proposed class did not satisfy Rule 23’s ascertainability and predominance requirements. Plaintiffs’ class action complaint alleged that Hulu violated the Video Privacy Protection Act by disclosing video selections and “personally identifiable information” to third parties such as Facebook. At the class certification hearing, the plaintiffs ... Keep Reading »
Basic Survives, But Defendants Must Have Opportunity To Show Lack Of Price Impact To Rebut “Fraud-On-The-Market” Presumption Of Reliance Prior To Class Certification
Earlier this week the Supreme Court reaffirmed the validity of the “fraud-on-the-market” presumption of reliance that significantly eases the burden on investors in obtaining certification of private securities fraud class actions, but held that defendants must be permitted an opportunity at the class certification stage to rebut the presumption through direct or indirect evidence showing that the alleged misrepresentations did not impact the stock price. In the more ... Keep Reading »
California Law on Arbitration Changes … Again
The California Supreme Court this week confirmed the validity of an employee's waiver of the right to bring a class action contained in an arbitration agreement. That's the good news for employers. However, the court also held that these arbitration agreements may not include a waiver of an employee's right to bring representative claims under the Private Attorney General Act (PAGA), found at Section 2698-99 of the California Labor Code. That is not good news and ... Keep Reading »
Amended Class Definition That Excludes Putative Class Member Does Not Preclude American Pipe Tolling
The Eastern District of Michigan recently held that certain claims of a putative class member were tolled under American Pipe & Constr. Co. v. Utah., 414 U.S. 538 (1974), even though the named plaintiff had unsuccessfully moved for certification of an amended class whose definition excluded the putative class member’s claims. In 2013, Plaintiff Machesney filed a Telephone Consumer Protection Act (“TCPA”) class action against Ramsgate Insurance Company in the Eastern ... Keep Reading »
Florida Court Reverses Class Certification Order Based On Outdated Definition Of Unfair Trade Practice
Florida’s Third District Court of Appeal reversed an order certifying a class of Porsche vehicle owners who had their high intensity discharge headlights stolen during the class period. The plaintiffs alleged that the defendant acted unfairly by distributing a product highly susceptible to theft without taking remedial steps such as notifying owners of the potential risk, in violation of Florida’s Deceptive and Unfair Trade Practices Act “(FDUTPA”). The trial court ... Keep Reading »
- « Previous Page
- 1
- …
- 44
- 45
- 46
- 47
- 48
- …
- 50
- Next Page »