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...more
The Eleventh Circuit recently imparted an important message to the class action bar, and in particular to attorneys representing different named plaintiffs in competing class actions: there is “only one gatekeeper under Rule...more
On May 13, 2020, the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals affirmed the remand of a wage and hour class action lawsuit filed in California state court based on the home state exception to the Class Action Fairness Act (CAFA). In its...more
The Eleventh Circuit recently examined the application of the $5 million amount-in-controversy requirement under the Class Action Fairness Act (CAFA) to disputes over life insurance premiums and policies. It concluded that...more
1/9/2020
/ Amount in Controversy ,
Breach of Contract ,
CAFA ,
Class Action ,
Consumer Insurance Products ,
Covenant of Good Faith and Fair Dealing ,
Declaratory Relief ,
Good Faith ,
Injunctive Relief ,
Life Insurance ,
Policy Terms ,
Premiums ,
Putative Class Actions ,
Reinstatement ,
Removal
After receiving a bankruptcy discharge, a borrower whose home is pending foreclosure has two options: stay in the home and, perhaps, make voluntary payments on the mortgage, or leave the home and start fresh. When a debt...more
11/14/2019
/ Bankruptcy Code ,
Class Action ,
Class Certification ,
Class Members ,
Consumer Bankruptcy ,
Debt Collection ,
FCCPA ,
FDCPA ,
Financial Services Industry ,
Foreclosure ,
FRCP 23(b)(3) ,
Homeowners ,
Mortgages ,
Popular ,
Preemption ,
Putative Class Actions ,
Reversal ,
Statutory Violations
The Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals recently underscored that removal practice under the Class Action Fairness Act (CAFA) differs in some important respects from traditional removal practice in non-CAFA cases. It did so...more
10/30/2019
/ Amount in Controversy ,
Appeals ,
Attorney's Fees ,
CAFA ,
Class Action ,
Dart Cherokee Basin Operating Co. v. Owens ,
Employment Litigation ,
Federal Jurisdiction ,
Hospitality Industry ,
Marriott ,
Putative Class Actions ,
Remand ,
Removal ,
Rest and Meal Break ,
Sua Sponte ,
Unpaid Wages ,
Wage and Hour ,
Wage Statements
The Seventh Circuit recently upheld the dismissal of a novel putative class action filed by financial institutions against grocer Schnuck Markets (“Schnucks”) based on the economic loss doctrine. ...more
The District of Columbia district court added to the growing collection of orders opining on whether and to what extent the Supreme Court’s decision in Bristol-Myers Squibb applies to class actions....more
4/19/2018
/ Bristol-Myers Squibb ,
Class Certification ,
Due Process ,
Employer Liability Issues ,
Employment Litigation ,
Gainsharing ,
Grocery Stores ,
Mass Tort Litigation ,
Motion to Dismiss ,
Non-Residents ,
Personal Jurisdiction ,
Putative Class Actions ,
Whole Foods
The Eastern District of New York recently declined to certify a putative class action filed by merchants against the four major credit card providers alleging antitrust violations. ...more
4/3/2018
/ American Express ,
Anti-Competitive ,
Antitrust Litigation ,
Antitrust Violations ,
Ascertainable Class ,
Banking Sector ,
Class Certification ,
Class Representatives ,
Debit and Credit Card Transactions ,
Financial Services Industry ,
Fraudulent Charges ,
MasterCard ,
Putative Class Actions ,
Visa Inc
A representative plaintiff who purchased Aveeno sunscreen products and baby bath products brought putative class actions against the products’ manufacturer, Johnson & Johnson, in the United State District Court for the...more
5/10/2017
/ Article III ,
Baby Products ,
CUTPA ,
False Advertising ,
FRCP 23(b)(2) ,
FRCP 23(b)(3) ,
Johnson & Johnson ,
Labeling ,
Natural Products ,
Personal Care Products ,
Putative Class Actions ,
Standing ,
Unfair or Deceptive Trade Practices
The Second Circuit Court of Appeals recently confronted (again) a situation where a defendant made an offer of judgment to the putative class representative to provide all of the relief available to the individual plaintiff....more
On March 16, 2017, the Southern District of California certified a class action against the manufacturer of gingko biloba and Costco Wholesale Corporation, the seller.
Plaintiff alleged, on behalf of a putative class of...more
The Northern District of California recently denied a motion for class certification in a case against Chevron Corporation connected to a 2012 explosion at a Nigerian natural gas drilling rig and the environmental impacts of...more
The Middle District of Florida recently denied a plaintiff’s motion for class certification concerning claims that a collection agency illegally and intentionally sent collection correspondence to mortgagees whose debts...more
Food for Thought is a review of significant court decisions affecting the food, beverage, dietary supplements and personal care products industry. Although many cases in this edition focus on class certification, others...more
2/17/2017
/ 7-Eleven ,
All Natural ,
Anheuser-Busch ,
Beer ,
Chipotle Grill ,
Class Action ,
Class Certification ,
CLRA ,
Coca Cola ,
Dole Food ,
False Advertising ,
Fast-Food Industry ,
Federal Food Drug and Cosmetic Act (FFDCA) ,
Federal Meat Inspection Act (FMIA) ,
Food and Drug Administration (FDA) ,
Food Labeling ,
Food Manufacturers ,
Food Marketing ,
Food Supply ,
GMO ,
Grocery Stores ,
Injunctive Relief ,
Kraft ,
Lanham Act ,
Manufacturers ,
Monster Energy Drinks ,
Natural Products ,
Nutritional Supplements ,
Personal Care Products ,
PETA ,
Popular ,
Poultry Products Inspection Act (PPIA). ,
Preemption ,
Putative Class Actions ,
Restaurant Industry ,
Slack-Fill Suits ,
Starbucks ,
Unfair Competition Law (UCL) ,
Whole Foods ,
Wine & Alcohol
Even before certification of a class under Rule 23(a)-(b), the district court has authority to appoint “interim counsel” under Rule 23(g)(3) “to act on behalf of a putative class before determining whether to certify the...more
In Pazol v. Tough Mudder Inc., No. 15-1640, — F.3d —-, 2016 WL 1638045 (1st Cir. Apr. 26, 2016), the First Circuit analyzed the “reasonable probability” standard that a defendant must satisfy to support CAFA’s $5 million...more
Khasin v. R. C. Bigelow, Inc., No. 12-CV-02204-WHO, 2016 WL 1213767 (N.D. Cal. Mar. 29, 2016), provides a recent example of a class-certification denial premised on the “damages model” rule expressed in Comcast Corp. v....more
A divided Supreme Court ruled today in Campbell-Ewald Co. v. Gomez, No. 14-857, that an unaccepted Rule 68 offer of judgment by a defendant cannot moot a putative class action. The decision settles a reserved question from...more