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
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
9/2/2016
/ American Pipe & Construction Co. v. Utah ,
Bernie Madoff ,
Class Action ,
FRCP 23 ,
Investment Fraud ,
JPMorgan Chase ,
Ponzi Scheme ,
Putative Class Actions ,
Rules Enabling Act ,
Securities ,
Securities Exchange Act ,
Securities Fraud ,
Statute of Limitations ,
Statute of Repose ,
Tolling
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
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
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