Monumental Win in Data Breach Class Action: A Case Study — The Consumer Finance Podcast
Ad Law Tool Kit Show – Episode 6 – Mitigating Class Action Exposure
Mass Torts vs. Class Actions: A Tale of Two Strategies
Fierce Competition Podcast | Letter From London: The Rise of UK Class Actions and the Competition Appeal Tribunal
JONES DAY TALKS®: Collective Actions in Spain: A Look Around and the View Ahead
Entertainment Law Update Episode 160 – August/September 2023
JONES DAY TALKS®: Class Actions Worldview Guide: Part 1–The United States and European Union
Eleventh Circuit Grants en banc Review to Resolve Controversial TCPA Standing Ruling
2022 Year in Review and Look Ahead Crossover With FCRA Focus - The Consumer Finance Podcast
2022 Year in Review and Look Ahead Crossover With The Consumer Finance Podcast - FCRA Focus
Fifth Circuit Affirms District Court’s Striking of Class Allegations
Podcast: California Employment News - The Basics of Wage Statement Compliance (Part 1)
California Employment News: The Basics of Wage Statement Compliance (Part 1)
What Is Mass Arbitration and How Should Companies Protect Themselves? - The Consumer Finance Podcast
Webinar Recording – Assessing the Surge in Wiretap Litigation
Fashion Counsel: Privacy in the Retail Fashion Industry
Recent Trends in Class-Action Consumer Finance Litigation - The Consumer Finance Podcast
#WorkforceWednesday: SCOTUS Rules on PAGA, Fifth Circuit Rules on COVID-19 Under WARN, Illinois Expands Bereavement Leave - Employment Law This Week®
ESG and SEC Enforcement: Securities & Exchange Commission v. Vale S.A and its Corporate Takeaways
Current Trends in FCRA Litigation - The Consumer Finance Podcast
A recent decision reported by Law360 is a useful reminder of the power of a remedy peculiar to Connecticut courts, the prejudgment remedy (PJR). Connecticut Superior Court Judge Bellis granted a $5M PJR on Saturday, March 2,...more
Conditions Precedent- In this appeal, the Eighth Appellate Court affirmed in part the trial court’s determination that Defendant breached its contract with Plaintiff disagreeing with Defendant-appellant that Plaintiff failed...more
Liu v. Securities And Exchange Commission, Case No. 18–1501 (2020). Equitable relief, including disgorgement, is permissible under the Securities Act of 1933, 15 U. S. C. §77a et seq., so long as it does not exceed a...more
A defendant by any other name does not smell as sweet when it comes to removing class actions from state court to federal court, even under the Class Action Fairness Act of 2005 (“CAFA”). Congress passed CAFA to address...more
On May 28, 2019, a divided Supreme Court held in a 5–4 opinion that third-party counterclaim defendants cannot remove putative class actions to federal court under the general federal removal statute, 28 U.S.C. § 1441, or the...more
The U.S. Supreme Court Limits Parties Entitled to Seek Removal of Class Action Claims Under CAFA - In a recent decision addressing federal court jurisdiction, the U.S. Supreme Court held that third-party counterclaim...more
A third party brought into a lawsuit by a counterclaim filed by the original defendant is not entitled to remove the case to federal court under the Class Action Fairness Act (CAFA), the U.S. Supreme Court has ruled....more
The U.S. Supreme Court issued two 5-4 decisions in as many months regarding class procedures. Lamp Plus, Inc. v. Varela, 587 U. S. ____ (2019) was favorable to corporate defendants by limiting the availability of class...more
From the class action defense perspective, companies and counsel alike are almost always looking for an angle to move a state-filed putative class action to the more rigorous environment of the federal courts. Congress...more
In Home Depot U. S. A., Inc. v. Jackson, No. 17-1471 (May 28, 2019), the Supreme Court of the United States addressed whether third-party counterclaim defendants in class actions have authority under the general removal...more
In a 5-4 decision written by Justice Clarence Thomas, and in which Justices Ginsburg, Breyer, Sotomayor and Kagan joined, the U.S. Supreme Court recently held that third-party defendants in state court actions cannot remove...more
To the surprise of many observers (including us), the Supreme Court held last week in Home Depot USA Inc. v. George Jackson that a third-party defendant could not remove class action claims – under either the general removal...more
On May 28, 2019, the Supreme Court held in a 5-4 decision authored by Justice Thomas that a third-party counterclaim defendant was not permitted to remove class action claims against it under the general removal statute, 28...more
On Tuesday May 28, 2019, the United State Supreme Court declined to afford state court third-party, class action defendants the ability to remove a class action to federal court. See Home Depot U.S.A., Inc. v. Jackson,...more
On May 28, the Supreme Court decided Home Depot U.S.A. v. Jackson, 17-1471 (2019), ruling 5–4 that third-party counterclaim defendants may not remove class actions from state to federal court. The decision, besides keeping in...more
It has long been established that a state-court plaintiff who is the subject of a counterclaim cannot remove the case to federal court. ...more
On May 28, 2019, Justice Clarence Thomas — joined by unlikely allies Justices Ginsburg, Breyer, Sotomayor, and Kagan — wrote the 5-4 majority opinion holding that third-party counterclaim defendants in class actions do not...more
Seyfarth Synopsis: Defendants can remove lawsuits filed in state courts to federal courts if they meet the statutory requirements for removal under either 28 U.S.C. § 1441(a) or the Class Action Fairness Act. In Home Depot U....more
The Lede - As Congress appreciated when it enacted the Class Action Fairness Act of 2005 (CAFA), large, multistate class actions are better suited for federal courts, not state ones. Following that logic, the Supreme Court...more
The Supreme Court yesterday rejected a counterclaim defendant’s attempt to remove a would-be class action to federal court, holding that even where that defendant, Home Depot, was not an original plaintiff, there was no right...more
The Supreme Court recently clarified that third-party counterclaim defendants — parties who were not defendants in the original action, but were brought in as third-party defendants by virtue of the original defendant’s...more
On May 28, 2019, the Supreme Court of the United States decided Home Depot U.S.A., Inc. v. Jackson, No. 17-1471, holding that neither the general federal removal statute nor the removal provision in the Class Action Fairness...more
The U.S. Supreme Court held yesterday that a third-party defendant could not remove a class action to federal court under the Class Action Fairness Act (CAFA) because the term “defendant” as used in CAFA refers only to the...more
The U.S. Supreme Court in Home Depot U. S. A., Inc. v. Jackson, No. 17-1471, 2019 WL 2257158 (U.S. May 28, 2019) held that a third-party defendant first named in a counterclaim cannot remove cases under either the general...more
On January 15, 2019, the Court heard arguments in Home Depot U.S.A., Inc. v. Jackson, No. 17-1471, and is now set to answer the question of whether the Class Action Fairness Act (CAFA)—which permits removal by “any defendant”...more