In This Issue:
- United States Supreme Court Holds Class Certification Improper Absent Showing Plaintiffs’ Damages Can Be Measured on a Classwide Basis through Use of a Common Methodology that Is Consistent with Plaintiffs’ Liability Theory
- United States Supreme Court Holds Putative Class Representative’s Purported Stipulation Limiting Classwide Damages to Less than $5 Million Is Non-Binding and Does Not Defeat Federal Court Jurisdiction Under Class Action Fairness Act
- Massachusetts Federal Court Holds Non-Resident Defendant in Multi-Defendant State Court Litigation May Not Remove Case to Federal Court Before Service on at Least One Properly Joined Defendant
- Massachusetts Federal Court Holds Declaratory Judgment on Third-Party Claim for Indemnity Premature Where Underlying Liability Has Not Yet Been Determined, and Contractually Indemnified Party that Refuses to Allow Indemnitor to Control Defense Waives Right to Indemnity
- Massachusetts Federal Court Holds State Law Negligent Manufacture and Distribution Claims Against Medical Device Manufacturer Not Preempted by Federal Food, Drug and Cosmetic Act Because Claims Sought to Impose Obligations Parallel to Those Imposed by “Good Manufacturing Practices” Regulations Promulgated Under Act
- Massachusetts Appeals Court Affirms Judgment for Turbine and Valve Manufacturers Because of Lack of Evidence Plaintiff’s Mesothelioma Was Caused or Contributed to by Any Asbestos in Their Products.
- Excerpt from United States Supreme Court Holds Class Certification Improper Absent Showing Plaintiffs’ Damages Can Be Measured on a Classwide Basis through Use of a Common Methodology that Is Consistent with Plaintiffs’ Liability Theory:
In Comcast Corp. v. Behrend, 133 S. Ct. 1426, 2013 WL1222646 (Mar. 27, 2013), cable television subscribers sued a cable service provider and its subsidiaries in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania, alleging defendants had pursued an illegal anticompetitive strategy known as “clustering” by which they acquired competitor cable providers’ systems within a particular region while simultaneously selling their own systems outside that region to the competitor. Plaintiffs alleged that as a result of these “swapping” agreements, both defendants and their competitors dramatically increased their market shares in their respective regions, thus eliminating competition and holding prices for cable services above competitive levels in violation of Sections 1 and 2 of the Sherman Act.
Please see full issue below for more information.