In the realm of TCPA class actions, the Central District of California’s decision in Wiley v. Am. Fin. Network, Inc. serves as a noteworthy (and positive) development. And it offers a blueprint for corporate defendants...more
Nearly three years after its decision in Johnson v. NPAS Solutions LLC, the Eleventh Circuit Court of Appeals remains the only circuit in the nation to categorically bar class representatives from receiving incentive awards....more
The District of Massachusetts’s recent decision in Fairfield v. DCD Auto. Holdings, Inc., No. 22-cv-11977, 2023 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 109463 (D. Mass. June 26, 2023) serves as a key reminder for businesses not only to have...more
More than two years ago, the Eleventh Circuit Court of Appeals ruled in Johnson v. NPAS Solutions, LLC, 975 F.3d 1244 (11th Cir. 2020) that incentive payments for lead plaintiffs in class-action lawsuits are improper. After...more
The TCPA has long been a breeding ground for innovative and aggressive plaintiffs and the attorneys who represent them. A recent federal district court decision highlights an important limitation on claims under the...more
A federal district court judge refused to certify a class led by a serial plaintiff who prolonged unsolicited calls in order to create a cause of action under the Telephone Consumer Protection Act (TCPA). The decision is a...more
Last month, in a split decision, the Eleventh Circuit reversed a district court’s incentive award to the named plaintiff in a class action alleging willful violations of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act. In doing so, it...more
In Johnson v. NPAS Sols., LLC, No. 18-12344 (11th Cir. Sep. 17, 2020), the Eleventh Circuit (the “Court”) found a series of errors in an order entered by the Southern District of Florida approving the settlement of a class...more
In a split decision, the 11th Circuit rejected a $6,000 incentive award for the named plaintiff in a TCPA class action. According to the majority in Johnson v. NPAS Solutions, LLC, U.S. Supreme Court precedent prohibits such...more
On September 17, 2020, the Eleventh Circuit Court of Appeals (Eleventh Circuit) issued an important decision regarding incentive payments in class-action settlements in Telephone Consumer Protection Act (TCPA) cases. In...more
In a split decision, the Eleventh Circuit rejected a $6,000 incentive award for the named plaintiff in a TCPA class action. According to the majority in Johnson v. NPAS Solutions, LLC, U.S. Supreme Court precedent prohibits...more
Seyfarth Synopsis: Incentive awards for class representatives are impermissible, according to a ground-breaking decision last week by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit. Though not an employment case, the...more
It is not atypical for class actions to be brought seeking damages that can be characterized as nominal in nature. An oftentimes powerful incentive for potential class representatives to put their names on a putative class...more
This week, an Eleventh Circuit panel, in a 2-1 decision, reversed the approval of an incentive payment to the named plaintiff, calling the payment an unauthorized bounty. The case involved a Telephone Consumer Protection Act...more
One of the biggest problems with the TCPA is how quickly a single call or text message can become the catalyst of a massive, and expensive nationwide class action creating significant exposure to any business caught in its...more
In Radha Geismann, M.D., P.C. v. ZocDoc, Inc., the Second Circuit declined to allow the defendant-appellee to moot a putative class action by depositing $20,000—in full settlement of the plaintiff-appellant’s individual...more
The TCPA legal doctrine atom smasher continues to, well, smash atoms. Earlier today we learned a bit about Article III standing of class representatives from a TCPA case, and now the wide world gets to learn about the...more
Just days ago I wrote about a district court opinion rejecting a tender of complete relief to pick off a named class representative’s claim in a putative TCPA class action. Well today the Second Circuit Court of Appeal has...more
Can a named class representative continue to represent a putative TCPA class action even after a Defendant pays the Plaintiff the highest amount he/she could possibly recover on their individual claim? That question was left...more
Sit back and grab your popcorn. I’m about to tell you about a recent ruling involving a fight over a class settlement with the Tampa Bay Buccaneers in a junk fax TCPA class action. While this story might sound like it’s...more
On Friday, the Sixth Circuit held in a matter of first impression that claims under TCPA survive the death of the Plaintiff, and may be prosecuted by a successor-in-interest. In Parchman v. SLM Corp., No. 17-5968, 2018...more
Takeaway: The U.S. Supreme Court ruled in January 2016 in Campbell-Ewald Co. v. Gomez that an unaccepted Rule 68 offer of judgment has no legal effect and therefore does not serve to moot a class action. 136 S. Ct. 663...more
On June 20, 2017, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 7th Circuit provided guidance on attempts by defendants to moot a plaintiff’s claim by depositing with the court damages sufficient to make the plaintiff whole. The practice...more
On June 20, 2017, the Seventh Circuit ruled that a defendant cannot moot the individual claims of a putative class representative by depositing an unaccepted settlement offer with the court covering all relief purportedly...more
Rien n’est eternel. Nothing lasts forever. In TCPAland, things don’t even last a week. Just days after a Chicago district court endorsed the tactic in A Custom Heating & Air Conditioning, Inc. v. Kabbage, Inc., 2017 U.S....more