The Florida Legislature has amended the construction statute of limitations and repose a second time in two years. Effective July 1, the amendments include (1) a provision addressing completion of the contract and final...more
In Altman Contractors, Inc. v. Crum & Forster Specialty Ins. Co., 832 F.3d 1318 (11th Cir. 2016), the Eleventh Circuit certified the following question to the Florida Supreme Court: "Is the notice and repair process set forth...more
The Southern District of Illinois recently confirmed that traditional diversity jurisdiction and jurisdiction under the Class Act Fairness Act (CAFA) provide two separate means of obtaining federal jurisdiction over class...more
Following an interlocutory appeal, in which the First Circuit ruled that a Rule 68 offer made prior to class certification did not moot the plaintiff’s claim, defendant returned to the Massachusetts district court seeking...more
The Southern District of California rejected a pre-certification class settlement because it provided for an inadequate coupon payment and a tenuous cy pres award, and included a clear sailing attorney fee provision....more
The Supreme Court has issued its long-awaited decision in Spokeo v. Robins. By a 6-2 vote, the Court reversed the Ninth Circuit decision that a class plaintiff who suffered no actual damages had standing to sue. But it did...more
The Southern District of California decertified a nationwide consumer product class due to material differences between the state laws applicable to the claims. The plaintiff in Czuchaj v. Conair Corp. alleged a defect in...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
2/15/2016
/ Ascertainable Class ,
CAFA ,
Chobani Inc ,
Class Action ,
Class Certification ,
ConAgra ,
Dietary Supplements ,
Federal Food Drug and Cosmetic Act (FFDCA) ,
Food Contamination ,
Food Labeling ,
Food Manufacturers ,
FRCP 23(b)(3) ,
Natural Products ,
Ocean Spray ,
Organic ,
Preemption ,
Standing
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
The Eleventh Circuit Court of Appeals denied a petition for rehearing en banc in the Lisk v. Lumber One Wood Preserving, LLC matter, where last month it held that the Alabama Deceptive Trade Practices Act’s restriction on...more
The defendant in a putative class action brought pursuant to the Electronic Funds Transfer Act (EFTA), 15 U.S.C. § 1693, et seq., tendered a Rule 68 offer of judgment to the named plaintiff before class certification briefing...more
8/31/2015
/ Attorney's Fees ,
Campbell Ewald v Gomez ,
Class Action ,
Class Certification ,
EFTA ,
Electronic Fund Transfer Act ,
Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA) ,
Genesis HealthCare ,
Genesis Healthcare Corp. v. Symczyk ,
Mootness ,
Motion to Dismiss ,
Putative Class Actions ,
Rule 68 ,
SCOTUS ,
Statutory Damages ,
Subject Matter Jurisdiction
In a case that began as a putative class action, the Seventh Circuit held that a Rule 68 offer of complete relief does not render litigation moot. Plaintiff in Chapman v. First Index filed a “junk-fax” suit pursuant to the...more
The Alabama Deceptive Trade Practices Act’s (ADTPA) restriction on private class actions does not apply in federal court. Federal Rule 23 controls. That’s what the Eleventh Circuit recently held, relying on Shady Grove...more
The Ninth Circuit reversed the dismissal of a class action and instructed the district court to remand the case to state court, based on the local controversy exception to the Class Action Fairness Act (CAFA). In doing so, it...more
The purpose of a telephone solicitation, rather than its content, determines whether it is prohibited telemarketing under the Telephone Consumer Protection Act (TCPA), 47 U.S.C. § 227 et seq. That is what the Eighth Circuit...more
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...more
The value of the claim at issue, not the value of the policy limit, is considered for purposes of determining the amount in controversy in an insurance coverage class action. That, the Middle District of Florida found, is the...more
In a case similar to its late-2014 decision in Mabary v. Home Town Bank, N.A., 771 F.3d 820 (5th Cir. 2014), the Fifth Circuit recently affirmed certification of a class of consumers who were charged a fee for using an...more
The U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia denied a motion to remand an action removed pursuant to the Class Action Fairness Act (“CAFA”), where the plaintiff failed to show CAFA’s local controversy exception...more
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...more
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...more
Just two weeks after the Supreme Court’s decision in Dart Cherokee Basin Operating Co., LLC v. Owens, the Eleventh Circuit affirmed a CAFA-based remand order where the defendant failed to establish by a preponderance of the...more
1/14/2015
/ Amount in Controversy ,
CAFA ,
Class Action ,
Dart Cherokee Basin Operating Co. v. Owens ,
Diversity Jurisdiction ,
Eli Lilly ,
Federal Jurisdiction ,
Incentive Compensation ,
Jurisdiction ,
Removal ,
SCOTUS
The Eleventh Circuit recently held that a defendant may not moot a class action through an unaccepted Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 68 offer of complete relief to the named plaintiffs—but not to class members—before the...more
The First Circuit Court of Appeals recently held that the thirty-day time period for removal under CAFA is triggered when the plaintiffs’ complaint or plaintiffs’ subsequent other papers provide defendants with sufficient...more
The Northern District of Illinois refused to restrict a defense counsel’s communications with putative class members, reasoning that the communications were not misleading or coercive. The case arose when a “romantic...more