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
Two years ago, in Johnson v. NPAS Solutions, LLC, the Eleventh Circuit upended decades’ worth of precedent by categorically forbidding incentive payments to class representatives in class action settlements...more
In a 7-4 split decision, the Eleventh Circuit declined to rehear en banc a panel decision issued in September 2020, holding a class settlement that included an incentive award to the class representative was improper. The en...more
Eleventh Circuit Rejects Administrative Feasibility Requirement: What Does the Future Hold for Ascertainability? As we discussed in our Spring 2017 issue of The Class Action Chronicle, courts have struggled to define the...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 scathing decision by the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York, the Court denied class certification of the Allergan securities class action (“Allergan”). See In re Allergan PLC Sec. Litig.,...more
On September 17, 2020, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit issued a bombshell decision: A court may not award an incentive fee to a class representative. This is surprising, if not shocking, as it is standard...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
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
The parties to class action litigation frequently contest whether plaintiffs are entitled to pre-certification discovery aimed at identifying additional or replacement class representatives. The U.S. Court of Appeals for the...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
Seyfarth Synopsis: On June 5, 2019, the Ninth Circuit issued an opinion in NEI Contr. & Eng’g, Inc. v. Hanson Aggregates Pac. Sw., Inc., 2019 U.S. App. LEXIS 16885 (9th Cir. June 5, 2019), upholding the district court’s...more
Bell v. Brockett is an unusual case in several respects. Most notably, the Fourth Circuit affirmed certification of a defendant class, despite acknowledging that defendant class actions are “so rare they have been compared to...more
Class actions typically involve a proposed class of plaintiffs seeking recovery from the same defendant on similar grounds. But that is not the only animal in the class action corral. Rule 23 makes this clear in its very...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
On October 3, the Eleventh Circuit Court of Appeals affirmed the district court’s approval of a class settlement, an award of attorney’s fees to class counsel, and the provision of an incentive award for the class...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
Plaintiffs in a lawsuit bear a substantial burden when seeking to be certified as a class under federal law. Where the defendant commences a bankruptcy proceeding, and the plaintiffs seek to file a proof of claim on behalf of...more