In That Case: Securities and Exchange Commission v. Jarkesy
The Justice Insiders Podcast: Jarkesy’s Implications for the Administrative State
5 Key Takeaways | ITC Litigation and Enforcement Conference
Recent Trends in Article III Standing - The Consumer Finance Podcast
AGG Talks: Background Screening - A Refresher on Responding to Consumer File Requests under Section 609 of the FCRA
#WorkforceWednesday: SCOTUS in Review, Biden Acts to Limit Non-Competes, NY HERO Act Model Safety Plans - Employment Law This Week®
SCOTUS Watch: The ACA and Key Health Law Areas Justice Barrett Could Impact - Diagnosing Health Care Podcast
Podcast: Texas v. United States of America
Polsinelli Podcasts - Supreme Court Closes Gap on Bankruptcy Issue
On October 4, the Eleventh Circuit agreed to review en banc a panel decision holding that a consumer’s heightened risk of identity theft is enough to establish Article III standing. Named plaintiff David Muransky filed a...more
On April 22, 2019, the Eleventh Circuit held in Muransky v. Godiva Chocolatier, Inc. that a plaintiff who claimed to have suffered a heightened risk of identity theft when the defendant printed a receipt containing too many...more
Here at FCRAland, we frequently discuss cases applying the Supreme Court’s 2016 case Spokeo v. Robbins. That case specified that, for a plaintiff to have standing under FCRA, the plaintiff would need to allege an injury that...more
We are pleased to share BakerHostetler’s 2017 Class Action Review, which offers a summary of key class action litigation developments during the past year. This comprehensive analysis of last year’s developments in class...more
The Northern District of Illinois cleared the way for a plumbing company’s putative TCPA class action against Allstate Insurance Company and Oh Insurance Agency by denying defendants’ motions to dismiss, which were inspired...more
Class action litigation is a rapidly developing area of the law. Here are the top five trends to keep an eye on as we approach the new year...more
A recent district court opinion from Michigan makes clear that statutory violations of the FDCPA do not absolve a plaintiff from the need to show a concrete injury in order to establish Article III standing. In Johnston v....more
In the wake of the U.S. Supreme Court's holding in Campbell-Ewald Company v. Gomez that an unaccepted Rule 68 offer of complete relief does not moot a plaintiff's individual claims, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Third...more
On January 20, 2016, the U.S. Supreme Court handed down its ruling in Campbell-Ewald Co. v. Gomez, where it was considering whether a plaintiff seeking damages under the Telephone Consumer Protection Act (“TCPA”) is able to...more
Last week, the U.S. Supreme Court decided Campbell-Ewald Co. v. Gomez, a closely watched Telephone Consumer Protection Act (TCPA) case. The plaintiff, Gomez, filed a TCPA class action after he received allegedly unwanted (and...more
Action Item: The U.S. Supreme Court clarifies the split among the circuits and holds that an unaccepted Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 68 offer and unaccepted settlement offer neither moots an individual or class claim. But...more
On January 20th, 2016, in Campbell-Ewald Co. v. Gomez, a case closely watched by both sides of the class action bar, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled in an opinion authored by Justice Ruth Bader Ginsberg that an unaccepted Rule...more
The Supreme Court affirmed the Ninth Circuit's ruling and held that Defendant's unaccepted settlement offer or offer of judgment did not moot Plaintiff's case. Campbell-Ewald Co. v. Gomez, — U.S.— (Jan. 20, 2016)....more
Relying on “basic principles of contract law,” the Supreme Court on Wednesday held that an unaccepted settlement offer and offer of judgment under Rule 68 are “legal nullit[ies]” that have no effect on whether a live...more
On Wednesday, January 20, in a 6-3 ruling, the U.S. Supreme Court held that an unaccepted settlement offer, or offer of judgment pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 68, cannot moot a plaintiff's case. The ruling...more
The U.S. Supreme Court has ruled that an unaccepted Rule 68 settlement offer does not moot a class action even when the offer would provide the named plaintiff with complete individual relief. The decision in Campbell-Ewald...more
Yesterday, the U.S. Supreme Court decided Campbell-Ewald Co. v. Gomez, No. 14-857. The question presented was whether an unaccepted offer of full relief on the named plaintiff’s individual claim will render a putative class...more
In recent years many defendants facing putative class action lawsuits in federal court have sought to neutralize these lawsuits by offering total relief to all named plaintiffs before the district court issues a ruling on...more
As we have previously noted, federal appellate courts have been split on whether a defendant can moot a class action by making a Rule 68 offer of judgment, agreeing to pay all of the damages to which the named plaintiff seeks...more
Today the U.S. Supreme Court ruled 6-3 that a company’s unaccepted offer of complete relief to a named plaintiff in a putative class action does not moot the plaintiff’s case. Before the ruling, authored by Justice Ruth Bader...more
Class actions consume considerable company resources and can pose significant risk of exposure in the $ millions or $ billions. Therefore, it is critical for companies to prepare themselves – to know the trends in class...more
Over recent years the United States Supreme Court has waded deep into the waters of class certification, significantly altering the playing field for class action claims. As the Supreme Court continues its 2015 session, it...more
I’ve been delayed a bit in reporting on this, but the October 2015 term of the U.S. Supreme Court is shaping up to be a blockbuster one for class action law. Perhaps even bigger than the October 2010 term, which brought us...more