In This Issue:

- The Fairness in Class Action Litigation Act of 2015

- Class Certification Decisions:

..Decisions Granting Motions to Strike/Dismiss Class Claims

..Decisions Denying Motions to Strike/Dismiss Class Claims

..Decisions Rejecting/Denying Class Certification

..Decisions Permitting/Granting Class Certification

..Other Class Action Decisions

- Class Action Fairness Act (CAFA) Decisions

..Decisions Denying Motions to Remand/Reversing Remand Orders/Finding CAFA Jurisdiction

..Decisions Granting Motions to Remand/Finding No CAFA Jurisdiction

- Excerpt from Decisions Granting Motions to Strike/Dismiss Class Claims:

Boyer v. Diversified Consultants, Inc., No. 14-cv-12339, 2015 WL 1941335 (E.D. Mich. Apr. 20, 2015). Judge Judith E. Levy of the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Michigan granted a motion to strike class allegations in a lawsuit alleging Telephone Consumer Protection Act (TCPA) violations but gave the plaintiffs leave to amend their complaint to revise the proposed class definitions. The complaint proposed two classes of people who had not provided their telephone number to the defendants as an authorized contact number and nonetheless had been contacted in some way (auto-dialed or received a prerecorded voice call). Given that the TCPA prohibits that very thing, the plaintiffs were in effect defining the class to include only individuals who had been subjected to a violation of the TCPA. The court held that this definition created an impermissible “fail safe” class. The court was unmoved by the plaintiffs’ argument that the proposed classes were determined by objective criteria. However, the court gave the plaintiffs leave to amend the complaint and revise the class definition.