Recently, the Northern District of California joined other courts in more closely scrutinizing class certification motions in TCPA cases. In a case involving an automated phone call by a loan servicer regarding Plaintiff’s...more
Seyfarth Synopsis: On January 15, 2020, in Guzman v. Chipotle Mexican Grill, Inc., No. 17-CV-02606-HSG, 2020 WL 227567 (N.D. Cal. Jan. 15, 2020), Judge Haywood Gilliam of the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of...more
Seyfarth Synopsis: In Ituah, et al. v. Austin State Hospital, a federal magistrate judge in Texas recently recommended the denial of a motion for class certification brought by patients alleging disability discrimination...more
The Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court (SJC) recently discussed class certification in state court wage and hour cases in Gammella v. P.F. Chang’s China Bistro....more
Attorneys who appear in both state and federal courts must be familiar with the differences between the two systems. While some rules have harmonized over time,[1] other procedures are entirely distinct. As a matter of...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
An Illinois district court recently denied certification, finding that the putative nationwide class failed the commonality and numerosity prongs of Rule 23(a) and that injunctive relief was not available under Rule 23(b)(2)...more
While Fed. R. Civ. P. 23(a)(1), the “numerosity” requirement, is not a frequently challenged issue in many class actions, its importance cannot be ignored. Rule 23(a)(1) mandates that in order to certify a class action, the...more
One of the least disputed elements of class certification is Rule 23(a)(1) numerosity, and so there is relatively little analysis from the courts about it. Last month, however, a divided panel of the Third Circuit provided a...more
The Modafinil decision bodes well for defendants and represents another step toward increased scrutiny of the class action device in the Third Circuit. On September 13, a divided panel of the U.S. Court of Appeals for...more
Yesterday, in In re Modafinil Antitrust Litig., 3d Cir. No. 15-3475 the Third Circuit provided a framework for analyzing the oft-overlooked numerosity requirement of Rule 23(a)(1).. The court’s decision both clarified and...more
This is the ninth edition of The Class Action Chronicle, a quarterly publication that provides an analysis of recent class action trends, along with a summary of class certification and Class Action Fairness Act rulings...more
In O’Connor v. Uber Technologies, Inc. (Filed 09/01/2015, No. C-13-3826 EMC), the United States District Court, Northern District of California, certified a class of approximately 160,000 current and former drivers of Uber in...more
The relatively light burden of proving numerosity under Rule 23(a) cannot be satisfied with speculative testimony, even if an expert does the speculating, says the Southern District of Florida. In a putative class...more