Latest Posts › FRCP 23

Share:

Nothing Shady Where State Statutory Language Restricting Class Actions is Clear

Six years ago, the U.S. Supreme Court stated in a plurality opinion that “Rule 23 unambiguously authorizes any plaintiff, in any federal proceeding, to maintain a class action if the Rule’s requirements are met” — even if the...more

No Repose for Debate on Applicability of American Pipe Tolling

In its seminal 1974 American Pipe opinion, the Supreme Court held that the commencement of a class action tolls the applicable statutes of limitation as to all putative class members who would have been parties had the class...more

Tablet Class Damages Model Doesn’t Tabulate … For Now

The Central District of California denied certification of a class that otherwise met the requirements of Rule 23 because the damages model proposed by plaintiff’s expert did not establish a reliable method for calculating...more

Missouri District Court Joins the List: Unaccepted Rule 68 Offer Does Not Moot Claims

Yet another court has found that an unaccepted Rule 68 Offer of Judgment will not moot a putative class action, even where the offer purports to satisfy all of plaintiff’s demands. Plaintiffs sued in the Eastern District of...more

Speculative Expert Testimony Fails To Satisfy Plaintiff’s Light Numerosity Burden

The relatively light burden of proving numerosity under Rule 23(a) cannot be satisfied with speculative testimony, even if an expert does the speculating, says the Southern District of Florida. In a putative class...more

5/21/2014  /  Evidence , FRCP 23 , Numerosity , Testimony
5 Results
 / 
View per page
Page: of 1

"My best business intelligence, in one easy email…"

Your first step to building a free, personalized, morning email brief covering pertinent authors and topics on JD Supra:
*By using the service, you signify your acceptance of JD Supra's Privacy Policy.
- hide
- hide