Interpreting Bristol-Myers : Are Unnamed Members of Nationwide Class Actions ‘Parties’? If So, When? In 2017, the Supreme Court decided Bristol-Myers Squibb Co. v. Superior Court of California (BMS), holding that a...more
Seyfarth Synopsis: Although federal courts are certifying class actions at a record rate, a recent opinion by the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Ohio demonstrates that the requirements of Rule 23 are not...more
On November 18, the Northern District of California issued an order denying class certification on the sole basis that the proposed named plaintiff was an inadequate class representative under Rule 23(a)(4) due to his prior...more
As the saying goes: “Everything in moderation— especially communications from defendant employers to putative members of a class action suit.” While this might not be exactly how the saying goes, a trial court in...more
In China Agritech, Inc. v. Resh, the Supreme Court of the United States held that the filing of a class action complaint does not toll a statute of limitations period for later-filed class actions raising the same claims. The...more
Justice Ginsburg delivered the opinion of the Court in China Agritech, Inc. v. Resh, No. 17-342, in which Chief Justice Roberts and Justices Kennedy, Thomas, Breyer, Alito, Kagan, and Gorsuch joined. Justice Sotomayor filed...more
This edition focuses on rulings issued between November 16, 2017, and February 15, 2018. In this issue, we cover five decisions granting motions to strike/dismiss class claims, seven decisions denying such motions, 15...more