As Federal Circuitry readers know, the Supreme Court in recent years has granted review in many patent cases from the Federal Circuit—like last Term’s big decision in Arthrex. But the Supreme Court also takes up cases from...more
On January 8, 2020, the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California reinstated its June 2014 class certification order, holding that the named plaintiff’s full refund damages model was consistent with his...more
We noted earlier the Supreme Court’s review of the Third Circuit’s decision in Rotkiske v. Klemm regarding the statute of limitations for claims under the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act (FDCPA). Again, this was a case...more
A&B ABstract: On December 10, 2019, the U.S. Supreme Court held that, absent the application of an equitable doctrine, the one-year statute of limitations for actions against debt collectors under the Fair Debt Collection...more
Rotkiske v. Klemm, 589 U.S. (2019) In a recent decision, the US Supreme Court ruled that a consumer claimant under the federal Fair Debt Collection Practices Act (“FDCPA”) has one year from the alleged violation to file...more
The Situation: The Fair Debt Collection Practices Act ("FDCPA") allows plaintiffs to sue over abusive debt-collection practices within one year of "the date on which the violation occurs." 15 U.S.C. § 1692k(d). The U.S. Court...more
The Supreme Court of the United States (“Supreme Court”) recently affirmed the Third Circuit’s decision holding Fair Debt Collection Practices Act (“FDCPA”) claims are subject to a one-year statute of limitations from the...more
Earlier this year, this blog reported on the Supreme Court's grant of certiorari in Rotkiske v. Klemm to resolve a split in circuits on the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act's (FDCPA) statute of limitations. This week, in an...more
In a victory for common sense, the Supreme Court has ruled, in Rotkiske v. Klemm, that the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act’s statute of limitations begins to run when the alleged FDCPA violation occurs, not when the...more
In an 8-1 decision, the U.S. Supreme Court has ruled in Rotkiske v. Klemm that the FDCPA’s one-year statute of limitations (SOL) runs from the date of the alleged violation and not from a consumer’s discovery of the...more
On December 10, 2019, the United States Supreme Court issued its decision in Rotkiske v. Klemm, holding that, absent application of an equitable doctrine, the statute of limitations for a claim under the Fair Debt Collection...more
On December 10, 2019, the Supreme Court of the United States decided Rotkiske v. Klemm, et al., No. 18-328, holding that the one-year statute of limitations set out in the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act (FDCPA) begins to...more
In Rotkiske v. Klemm, the Supreme Court has the opportunity to do what many plaintiffs’ attorneys have dreamed of for years: effectively expand the FDCPA’s one-year statute of limitations by applying the “discovery rule” to...more
The U.S. Supreme Court suddenly seems to have a little time on its hands. Or at least on its mind. In two different class action cases on its docket this week, the question at hand was timeliness....more
In a recent ruling in In re: BP p.l.c. Securities Litigation the United States District Court for the Southern District of Texas dismissed claims asserted by opt-out plaintiffs as time barred by the Exchange Act’s statute of...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
The United States Supreme Court recently handed the defense bar a useful tool in stemming the tide of class action lawsuits. In the area of employment law, claims for violations of federal wage and hour laws, violations of...more
The U.S. Supreme Court closed out its most recent term, which began in October 2017, with a number of high-profile and ground-breaking decisions. ...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
This quarter’s issue includes summaries and associated court opinions of selected cases principally decided between February 2018 and May 2018. ...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
A putative class action plaintiff may not launch a new class action lawsuit after an earlier court denies class certification if the applicable statute of limitations has run, says the U.S. Supreme Court, in a unanimous...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