Last year, we alerted you to the filing of several class action lawsuits alleging that plan fiduciaries violated their duties of prudence and loyalty under Title I of ERISA by applying forfeitures to reduce employer...more
Overview - The District Court for the Northern District of California recently provided guidance in Alkutkar v. Bumble Inc., No. 22-CV-00422- PJH (N.D. Cal. Sept. 8, 2022), reconsideration denied, No. 22-CV-00422-PJH,...more
Two Illinois Federal Courts Deny Class Certification in Anti-Poaching Class Actions Against Franchisors - Two federal courts in Illinois have rejected motions to certify classes of employees who worked in franchised...more
Seyfarth Synopsis: On January 24, 2020, the Massachusetts Commission Against Discrimination issued significant changes to its regulations regarding the processing of cases. The new procedural regulations are a mixed bag for...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
On February 26, the Supreme Court unanimously held in Nutraceutical Corporation v. Lambert that the text of Rule 23(f)—which sets a 14-day deadline for a party to petition a circuit court for permission to appeal a district...more
The Court's decision reinforces the inflexibility of the Federal Rules' deadline to file petitions for permission to appeal and cautions against reliance on equitable principles, even where diligence and good cause may exist....more
The Federal Rules of Appellate Procedure are generally liberal and allow the appellate courts a great deal of discretion: for example, FRAP 2 allows a Court of Appeals to “suspend any provision of these rules in a particular...more
On February 26, 2019, the United States Supreme Court unanimously reversed a decision from the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit, which had held that Rule 23(f) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure is...more
• The United States Supreme Court held that Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23(f)’s 14-day deadline for parties to seek permission for interlocutory review of class certification decisions is not subject to equitable tolling....more
Last week, the Supreme Court unanimously reversed a Ninth Circuit decision, resolving a circuit split in ruling that Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23(f)’s 14-day deadline for a losing party to file a petition for permission...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
On February 26, 2019, the Supreme Court of the United States ruled that under Rule 23(f) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure (FRCP), a petition for permission to appeal an order decertifying a class must be filed within...more
To immediately appeal a federal district court’s order granting or denying class certification, a party must first seek permission from the relevant court of appeals “within 14 days after the order is entered.” Fed. R. Civ....more
This week, the Supreme Court in Nutraceutical Corp. v. Lambert unanimously held that Rule 23(f) is not subject to equitable tolling. ...more
In a decision important to class action practice, the U.S. Supreme Court has held that Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23(f), which establishes a 14-day deadline to seek permission to appeal an order granting or denying class...more
On February 26, 2019, in Nutraceutical Corp. v. Lambert, the Supreme Court of the United States held that Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23(f)’s 14-day deadline to request permission to appeal a district court’s order...more
Seyfarth Synopsis: To take an immediate appeal from a federal district court’s order granting or denying class certification, a party must first seek permission from the applicable court of appeals “within 14 days after the...more
On February 26, 2019, the Supreme Court of the United States decided Nutraceutical Corp. v. Lambert, holding that Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23(f)’s requirement that a party petition a federal appeals court for...more
The Supreme Court ruled yesterday, in Nutraceutical Corp. v. Lambert, that the 14-day deadline under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23(f) for petitioning a court of appeals to hear a discretionary appeal from a class...more
This case involves a dispute between American Family Life Assurance Company of Columbus (“Aflac”) and a group of independent contractors (“associates”), arising out of alleged misrepresentations by Aflac. Pursuant to their...more
The saying goes, knowledge equals power. For plaintiffs asserting claims for injunctive relief on behalf of putative classes, however, the Mott’s Apple Juice case demonstrates just the opposite....more
Our readers may recall that last year, the Supreme Court ruled that a plaintiff in a putative class action cannot subvert the discretionary nature of Rule 23(f) interlocutory review by voluntarily dismissing his case after...more
Under Federal Rule 23(f), parties have 14 days to petition for interlocutory review of an order granting or denying class certification. The federal appellate courts of appeals construe this deadline as “procedural” rather...more
Within 10 days after the district court decertified a Rule 23(b)(3) aphrodisiac dietary supplement class for failure to show a class wide method for calculating damages, plaintiff orally advised the court of his intention to...more