In the latest court ruling to address personal jurisdiction over out-of-state opt-in plaintiffs in Fair Labor Standards Act collective actions, a federal district court in North Carolina held that it lacked jurisdiction over...more
In its 2017 decision in Bristol-Myers Squibb Co. v. Superior Court of Cal., the U.S. Supreme Court held that a state court could not exercise specific personal jurisdiction over nonresident plaintiffs’ claims against a...more
“Incentive” or “service” awards to lead plaintiffs in Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23 (Rule 23) class actions are unlawful, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit has ruled in a suit brought under the Telephone...more
The Eleventh Circuit Court of Appeals ruled today that “incentive” or “service” awards to lead plaintiffs in Rule 23 class actions are unlawful. It is the first circuit court of appeals to expressly invalidate such awards as...more
In a decision important to class action practice, the U.S. Supreme Court has held that Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23(f), which establishes a 14-day deadline to seek permission to appeal an order granting or denying class...more
2/28/2019
/ Class Action ,
Class Certification ,
Collective Actions ,
Corporate Counsel ,
Decertification ,
Equitable Tolling ,
Federal Rules of Civil Procedure ,
Filing Deadlines ,
FRCP 23(f) ,
Interlocutory Appeals ,
Leave to Appeal ,
Motion for Reconsideration ,
Nutraceutical Corp v Lambert ,
SCOTUS
Once class action certification has been denied, a putative class member may not start a new class action beyond the applicable statute of limitations, the U.S. Supreme Court has ruled, 9-0, in an opinion by Justice Ruth...more