AGG Talks: Background Screening - A Refresher on Responding to Consumer File Requests under Section 609 of the FCRA
#WorkforceWednesday: SCOTUS in Review, Biden Acts to Limit Non-Competes, NY HERO Act Model Safety Plans - Employment Law This Week®
A highlight from this issue includes Class Definitions....more
Welcome back to the Class Action & MDL Roundup! This edition covers notable class actions from the fourth quarter of 2024. In this edition, an overdue audiobook suit is shelved, an old case gets new reps and new...more
Earlier this year, the Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit issued its decision in Lytle v. Nutramax Labs, Inc., finding that a class action plaintiff may rely on a model to demonstrate that damages are susceptible to...more
In a win for Defendant IQVIA, Inc., accused of allegedly sending faxes in violation of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act (TCPA), the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania denied Plaintiff...more
A federal judge in Oklahoma recently stayed class proceedings, including the distribution of class notice, but declined to stay summary judgment briefing pending a ruling on the defendant’s petition to the Tenth Circuit for...more
Post-TransUnion, A Closer Examination of Threshold for Article III Standing- Class action trials are rare. The potential magnitude of an adverse verdict, even when improbable, makes the risks of trial unpalatable for...more
Last month, the Ninth Circuit struck down a district court’s order approving a class settlement and awarding nearly $7 million in attorneys’ fees to class counsel in a consumer class action challenging the defendant’s...more
On February 2, 2021, the United States Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit issued a significant decision holding that a putative class representative does not need to establish an administratively feasible method to...more
- In a matter of first impression within the 9th Circuit, the court held that each member of a certified class must have Article III standing in order to recover individual monetary damages at trial. - Those class members...more
The Sixth Circuit recently held that Arizona lacked standing to intervene in, and object to, a nationwide class settlement at the settlement fairness hearing. The underlying case involved Tristar Products’ defective pressure...more
On July 17, 2019, the Law Commission of Ontario released the final report of its class action investigative project, Class Actions: Objectives, Experiences and Reforms. The project is the most comprehensive research,...more
On December 1, 2018, the amendments to Rule 23 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure (“Rule 23”), which governs class actions, went into effect. The amendments codify certain procedures the courts have been requiring or...more
In a unanimous decision, the United States Supreme Court held on June 11, 2018 that a pending motion for class certification does not toll the statute of limitations for the filing of a new class action lawsuit by a putative...more
On June 11, 2018, the Supreme Court issued its ruling in China Agritech, Inc. v. Resh, clarifying the scope of the tolling doctrine triggered by the filing of a class action. The doctrine, as established by earlier Court...more
The U.S. Supreme Court reached a decision in China Agritech, Inc. v. Resh holding that the equitable tolling rule does not apply to subsequently filed class action claims. ...more
In China Agritech, Inc. v. Resh, the Supreme Court earlier this month held that pending class actions do not toll the limitations period for successive class actions. The ruling limits plaintiffs’ ability to bring successive...more
On June 11, 2018, in China Agritech, Inc. v. Resh, the United States Supreme Court held that the American Pipe tolling doctrine, which suspends the running of the statute of limitations applicable to the claims of individual...more
Last week, the United States Supreme Court reigned in plaintiffs’ ability to file new class action suits outside the statute of limitations. The Court decided in China Agritech that, following denial of class...more
Class-action plaintiffs cannot toll the statute of limitations indefinitely by filing copycat class actions until certification sticks, the U.S. Supreme Court held on Monday, June 11, in China Agritech, Inc. v. Resh. The...more
The U.S. Supreme Court bars previously absent class members from bringing subsequent class actions outside the applicable limitations period. The Supreme Court’s decision in China Agritech, Inc. v. Resh cements a new limit...more
When does time run out on filing a class action? Under the U.S. Supreme Court's seminal decisions in American Pipe & Construction Co. v. Utah and Crown, Cork & Seal Co. v. Parker, a timely class complaint tolls the statute of...more
The Supreme Court held unanimously on June 11 that American Pipe tolling does not apply to successive class actions brought outside the statute of limitations. The case, China Agritech v. Resh, resolves a circuit split over...more
The legal world is abuzz with the ripples created by a recent US Supreme Court decision on the statute of limitations in class actions. A recent post in the Epstein Becker Wage & Hour Defense Blog makes some interesting...more
On Monday, the U.S. Supreme Court held in China Agritech, Inc. v. Resh, No. 17-432, 584 U.S. __, 2018 WL 2767565 (2018), that the equitable tolling doctrine established by its landmark decision, American Pipe v. Utah, does...more
In China Agritech, Inc. v. Resh, the Supreme Court recently held that pending class actions do not toll the limitations period for successive class actions. The ruling limits plaintiffs’ ability to bring successive class...more