In 2016, the Supreme Court issued its decision in Spokeo Inc. v. Robins, holding that even when Congress has granted parties a statutory right, a procedural violation of that right will not by itself satisfy the “concrete...more
In Frank v. Gaos, the Supreme Court appeared poised to decide a divisive class action issue: whether settlement awards to third-party charities (known as cy pres awards) are valid. On March 20, however, an 8-1 majority...more
In 2016, the United States Supreme Court issued a landmark opinion addressing Article III standing under the U.S. Constitution. See Spokeo v. Robins, ––– U.S. ––––, 136 S. Ct. 1540, 194 L.Ed.2d 635 (2016). The “standing to...more
We have been following the Frank v. Gaos, 586 U. S. __ (2019) class action case, which presented an opportunity for the U.S. Supreme Court to determine the limits on the use of the cy pres doctrine in the context of class...more
In Frank v. Gaos, plaintiff Paloma Goas brought a class action alleging that Google’s transmission of users’ search terms violated the Stored Communications Act, 18 U.S.C. § 2701, et seq. (“SCA”). The SCA creates a private...more
As we predicted in a January 2019 post [Cy pres-only class settlements – anticipated Supreme Court decision may never come to pass], the United States Supreme Court, in a closely-watched case, declined to rule on the fairness...more
In a recent per curiam decision, the US Supreme Court forcefully held that even where parties agree to settle a putative class action seeking statutory penalties, the named plaintiff must satisfy Spokeo’s injury-in-fact...more
• On March 20, 2019, the U.S. Supreme Court remanded a case involving the use of cy pres in lieu of specific relief to individual class members in a proposed settlement for a determination of whether the plaintiffs had...more
The Supreme Court recently issued an opinion concerning the requirements for Article III standing for statutory violations under the Stored Communications Act (SCA). ...more
The federal rules of civil procedure require that class action settlements be “fair, reasonable, and adequate.” In Frank v. Gaos, No. 17-961, the U.S. Supreme Court was expected to decide whether a district court properly...more
The United States Supreme Court on March 20, 2019 remanded an $8.5 million settlement in a class action against Google to the Ninth Circuit so that the lower court could evaluate standing under the Supreme Court’s 2016 Spokeo...more
On March 20, 2019, the Supreme Court refused to address the adequacy of a $8.5 million Google privacy class action settlement and instead remanded to a lower court to determine whether the class action plaintiffs had standing...more
Yesterday, in a case that was being watched closely for its potential ramifications for class settlements, the Supreme Court opted not to address the merits of the cy pres issues that were presented to it....more
On March 20, 2019, the U.S. Supreme Court issued a per curiam opinion vacating the decision of the Ninth Circuit in Frank v. Gaos. ...more
Seyfarth Synopsis: On March 20, 2019, in Frank, et al. v. Gaos, No. 17-961, 2019 WL 1264582 (U.S. Mar. 20, 2019), the U.S. Supreme Court held that the Article III standing preconditions to federal court litigation, as...more
Yesterday, the Supreme Court sent Frank v. Gaos back to the Ninth Circuit to address the issue of standing under Spokeo. Frank involved allegations of privacy violations. Plaintiffs brought class action claims against...more
On March 20, 2019, the Supreme Court issued a per curiam opinion in Frank v. Gaos, No. 17-961, declining to address whether the class-action settlement was fair, reasonable, and adequate under Fed. R. Civ. P. 23(e), and...more