On August 8, 2024, the Federal Trade Commission announced that as a result of a lawsuit, two defendants that allegedly helped operate a purported business opportunity scheme known by several names have agreed to settlements...more
In recent weeks, we have seen an increase in prosecution by the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau (“CFPB”) and state attorneys general against debt relief companies and law firms. Additionally, the focus on these debt...more
In the most recent verdict against former President Donald Trump, the jury awarded quite a bit more than the plaintiff had asked for. In the case of the $83.3 million defamation award made to the writer, E. Jean Carroll, we...more
As the calendar turns to autumn, the United States Supreme Court (“SCOTUS”) is commencing its new term and preparing to address a monumental issue that will impact chapter 11 law and the mass tort system: the permissibility...more
By Dr. Ken Broda-Bahm: The Covid pandemic is now mostly in the rear-view mirror, but in now busy courthouses across the country, the juries who are returning seem a little different. Based on common experience, they appear to...more
Even practitioners well-accustomed to federal practice often overlook the critical rule regarding the deadline for removal when a defendant has been served through a statutory agent, an agent appointed to receive process by...more
A recent Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals case highlights the importance of defendants actively participating in lawsuits even when named as a seemingly nominal defendant....more
Ordinarily, a defendant will not actively try to help the plaintiff prove her case. But even this fundamental principle of the adversarial litigation process has limits. For example, in the criminal context, a defendant may...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
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 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