This is the third edition of The Class Action Chronicle, a quarterly publication that provides an analysis of recent class action trends, along with a summary of class certification and Class Action Fairness Act rulings issued during each quarter. Our publication is designed to keep both practitioners and clients up to date on class action developments in antitrust, mass torts/products liability, consumer fraud and other areas of law.

The Spring 2014 edition focuses on rulings issued between November 15, 2013, and February 15, 2014, and begins with a short article regarding the potential impact of the U.S. Supreme Court’s review of Halliburton Co. v. Erica P. John Fund, Inc. on consumer class actions. For a discussion of the Supreme Court’s recent denial of certiorari in Glazer v. Whirlpool Corp., 722 F.3d 838 (6th Cir. 2013), and Butler v. Sears, Roebuck & Co., 727 F.3d 796, 801 (7th Cir. 2013), please see our recent alert, “Supreme Court Punts on Twin No Injury Washing Machine Class Actions.”

In This Issue:

- The Due-Process Implications of the Presumption of Reliance in Consumer Fraud Class Actions

- CLASS CERTIFICATION DECISIONS:

- Decisions Denying Motions to Strike.

- Decisions Rejecting/Denying Class Certification

- Decisions Permitting/Granting Class Certification

- Other Class Certification Decisions

- CLASS ACTION FAIRNESS ACT (CAFA) DECISIONS:

- Decisions Denying Motions to Remand/

- Reversing Remand Orders

- Decisions Granting Motion to Remand

- Excerpt from The Due-Process Implications of the Presumption of Reliance in Consumer Fraud Class Actions:

This Term the Supreme Court is set to revisit the use of presumptions of reliance in the certification of class actions in Halliburton Co. v. Erica P. John Fund, Inc.1 The case presents the questions whether courts should continue to entertain a presumption of reliance in some securities cases and, if so, whether defendants in such cases have a right to rebut the presumption with evidence at the class certification stage. Although the case arises in the context of securities litigation, the Court’s answers to these questions could have profound implications for the litigation of consumer fraud cases, in which a presumption of reliance has been applied in some circumstances for many decades...

Please see full publication below for more information.

LOADING PDF: If there are any problems, click here to download the file.

Topics:  Ascertainable Class, Breach of Contract, Breach of Warranty, Burden of Proof, Butler v Sears, CAFA, Class Action, Class Certification, Commonality, Consumer Protection Act, Damage Waivers, EFTA, FDCPA, Fraud, Halliburton v Erica P. John Fund, Indirect Purchasers, Injunctions, Motion To Strike, Negligence, Numerosity, Pharmaceutical Manufacturers, Predominance Requirement, Presumption of Reliance, Removal, RESPA, Rule 23(b)(2), Rule 23(b)(3), Rule 68, Securities Litigation, Standing, Subject Matter Jurisdiction, TCPA, Unfair Competition, Whirlpool v Glazer

Published In: Civil Procedure Updates, Civil Remedies Updates, Consumer Protection Updates, Personal Injury Updates, Products Liability Updates

DISCLAIMER: Because of the generality of this update, the information provided herein may not be applicable in all situations and should not be acted upon without specific legal advice based on particular situations.

© Skadden, Arps, Slate, Meagher & Flom LLP | Attorney Advertising

Don't miss a thing! Build a custom news brief:

Read fresh new writing on compliance, cybersecurity, Dodd-Frank, whistleblowers, social media, hiring & firing, patent reform, the NLRB, Obamacare, the SEC…

…or whatever matters the most to you. Follow authors, firms, and topics on JD Supra.

Create your news brief now - it's free and easy »