In what may be a glimpse into the next frontier in class action litigation, two federal courts recently disposed of putative class actions alleging violations of state privacy laws involving genetic and biometric data. In a rare defense victory in a circuit favored by the plaintiff’s bar, a Ninth Circuit panel affirmed a decision by the United States District Court for the District of Alaska denying plaintiff’s motion for certification of claims under Alaska’s ... Keep Reading »
Search Results for: rule 23
Despite Second Shot at Ascertainability Post-Petrobras, Renewed Motion to Certify Falls Flat on Predominance Grounds
Royal Park, an investment company, recently suffered its second defeat in its attempt to certify a class action against Deutsche Bank regarding bond-like instruments collateralized by mortgages held in trusts entitling instrument-holders to the mortgages’ cash flow for various contractual and common law claims. The Southern District of New York denied Royal Park’s first motion to certify on the grounds the proposed class was insufficiently ascertainable, finding it was ... Keep Reading »
Third Circuit Rejects ‘Shingle Lottery’ Theory of Common Defect in Putative Homeowner Class
The Third Circuit Court of Appeals recently affirmed a district court order denying certification to a group of homeowners in four states who alleged roof shingle manufacturer Owens Corning sold defective roof shingles and misrepresented their expected useful life. Specifically, plaintiffs alleged claims for breach of express warranty, breach of implied warranty of merchantability, and violation of various state consumer protection statutes because the shingles installed ... Keep Reading »
District Courts Split on Whether Bristol-Myers Squibb‘s Specific Personal Jurisdiction Analysis Bars Nationwide Class Actions In Districts Beyond Defendant’s Home Venue
The ramifications of the Supreme Court’s decision in Bristol-Myers Squibb Co. v. Superior Court of California, San Francisco Cty., 137 S. Ct. 1773 (2017), remain unsettled. In Bristol-Myers Squibb, the United States Supreme Court rejected California’s "sliding scale approach" to assertions of specific personal jurisdiction. California’s Supreme Court had addressed a nationwide mass action and held that California could assert specific jurisdiction over the claims of ... Keep Reading »
Third Circuit Ascertainability Requirement Puts the Squeeze on Orange Juice Purchasers
A New Jersey district court denied certification to a putative class of Tropicana orange juice purchasers from “Members Only” or “Loyalty Card” stores in California, New York, New Jersey, and Wisconsin. The plaintiffs alleged various common law and statutory consumer protection causes of action based on Tropicana’s alleged false marketing of its orange juice as “all natural.” The court found that the plaintiffs satisfied the four certification requirements of Rule 23(a) ... Keep Reading »
Conflict of Interest Renders Spouse of Former Class Counsel Inadequate Class Representative
The Eastern District of New York recently held that a former class counsel’s spouse was an inadequate class representative due to the conflict of interest created by the relationship. The plaintiff, Dr. Eve Wexler, brought a putative class action against AT&T, alleging violations of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act. The case was originally filed by the plaintiff’s husband, Shimshon Wexler, who was later joined by another attorney, Mr. Giardina. AT&T argued ... Keep Reading »
Too Fast and Furious: Ninth Circuit Unwinds Hyundai and Kia Nationwide Class Action Settlement
In a split panel, the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals reversed a district court’s certification of a nationwide class action settlement because the lower court failed to conduct a sufficient predominance inquiry under Rule 23(b)(3). In 2012 Hyundai and Kia were accused of overstating their fuel efficiency estimates in advertisements and car window stickers for certain of their vehicles. A flurry of putative class action litigation ensued across the country, and the MDL ... Keep Reading »
Second Circuit Reiterates: Defendants Must Satisfy Burden of Persuasion Through a Preponderance of the Evidence to Rebut Basic Presumption in Securities Fraud Class Actions
The Second Circuit, in keeping with its recent decision in Waggoner v. Barclays, reaffirmed that defendants must satisfy the burden of persuasion by a preponderance of the evidence to rebut the presumption established by the Supreme Court in Basic, Inc. v. Levinson. The plaintiffs-appellees, who had acquired shares of Goldman Sachs stock between 2007 and 2010, claimed violations of section 10(b) of the Securities Exchange Act and Rule 10b–5, based on Goldman’s alleged ... Keep Reading »
SeaWorld Shareholders See Red After World Sees Blackfish
A California District Court granted certification to a group of SeaWorld investors in a shareholder securities fraud case following the release of the documentary “Blackfish.” First released in July 2013, “Blackfish” chronicles the cruelty of killer whale capture methods, the danger posed by killer whales to trainers, and the physical and psychological strains killer whales experience in captivity. The movie resulted in significant negative publicity for SeaWorld and ... Keep Reading »
Charges by Law Firm-Owned Vendors Challenged in Putative Client Class
Plaintiffs signed engagement letters with the law firm Finkelstein & Partners (the “law firm”) to represent them in two separate personal injury lawsuits on a contingency basis. The contract specifically identified several litigation support vendors who may perform work on the cases, including service of subpoenas, writing client biographies, investigations, photo and video gathering, locating expert witnesses, research, conducting focus groups, and creating trial ... Keep Reading »
- « Previous Page
- 1
- …
- 5
- 6
- 7
- 8
- 9
- …
- 22
- Next Page »