News & Analysis as of June 2, 2025

Federal Rules of Civil Procedure

+ Follow

The United States Supreme Court is the highest court of the United States and is charged with interpreting federal law, including the United States Constitution. The Court's docket is largely discretionary with only a limited number of cases granted review each term. The Court is comprised of one chief justice and eight associate justices, who are nominated by the President and confirmed by the Senate to hold lifetime positions. less -

Update: Supreme Court Might Still Not Decide Whether a Class Can Contain Individuals Who Lack Any Article III Injury

Robinson Bradshaw on 5/6/2025

A few months ago, we wrote about the U.S. Supreme Court’s decision to grant review in Labcorp v. Davis. As we noted at the time, Labcorp raises a long-debated question of class-action law: Can a federal court certify a...more

SCOTUS Considers Article III Questions with Significant Implications on Class Action Certification

Katten Muchin Rosenman LLP on 5/1/2025

The Supreme Court of the United States (SCOTUS) heard oral argument this week in Labcorp v. Davis (No. 24-304) to determine “[w]hether a federal court may certify a class action pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure...more

Will Supreme Court Punt on Circuit Split Over Article III Standing in Class Actions?

Foley & Lardner LLP on 5/1/2025

On April 29, 2025, the Supreme Court heard argument on an issue that has divided the circuits: “Whether a federal court may certify a class action pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23(b)(3) when some members of the...more

Everyone Please Stand: Supreme Court to Consider Standing Requirements for Class Actions, With the Potential to Resolve...

Morrison & Foerster LLP - Class Dismissed on 2/20/2025

On January 24, 2024, the Supreme Court granted certiorari in Laboratory Corp. of America v. Davis (“LabCorp”),[1] to consider “[w]hether a federal court may certify a class action pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure...more

Readily Ascertainable - WilmerHale's Trade Secret Bulletin: January 2025

WilmerHale on 2/11/2025

This month’s cases involve a cert petition to the U.S. Supreme Court on the extraterritorial application of the federal Defend Trade Secrets Act, a matter of first impression before the Court of Federal Claims, and a reminder...more

United States Supreme Court Unanimously Holds That an Amended Complaint Can Deprive Federal Courts of Jurisdiction

Snell & Wilmer on 1/27/2025

The Supreme Court ruled on January 15, 2025, that if a plaintiff amends a complaint to remove federal claims after a case has been removed to federal court, the federal court loses its jurisdiction over the remaining...more

Supreme Court Ruling Clears Way For $350K Religious Bias Jury Award

Fisher Phillips on 11/20/2019

Following a decision by the U.S. Supreme Court several months ago allowing a former employee to pursue a religious discrimination claim, a Texas federal jury recently ordered her former employer to pay her $350,000. The...more

U.S. Supreme Court Limited Authority to Remove Class Actions to Original Defendants, Third-Party Counterclaim Defendants May Not...

Moore & Van Allen PLLC on 8/25/2019

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

Supreme Court Limits Removal Authority of Counterclaim Defendants

King & Spalding on 6/27/2019

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

“Any Defendant” Does Not Really Mean “Any Defendant”

K&L Gates LLP on 6/20/2019

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

Fort Bend County v. Davis: SCOTUS Bends Employers' Defense to Title VII Claims, But Doesn't Break It

Snell & Wilmer on 6/14/2019

On June 3, 2019, the United States Supreme Court ("Supreme Court") unanimously held in Fort Bend County v. Davis that federal courts may be able to hear claims brought under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 (“Title...more

U.S. Supreme Court Said “No” to Class Arbitration in Employment-Related Data Breach Dispute Because Arbitration Agreement...

Moore & Van Allen PLLC on 6/12/2019

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

Facing a Class Action Complaint as a Third-Party Defendant? Time to Get Comfortable in State Court

Foley & Lardner LLP on 6/11/2019

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

The Supreme Court Rules on Class Action Removal Limits for Third-Party Counterclaim Defendants

Ogletree, Deakins, Nash, Smoak & Stewart,... on 6/7/2019

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

Failure to File EEOC Charge Does Not Automatically Bar Title VII Claims, Supreme Court Says

Williams Mullen on 6/6/2019

On June 3, 2019, the U.S. Supreme Court held that an employee may be able to proceed with a federal discrimination lawsuit, even if the employee has not first filed a Charge of Discrimination with the Equal Employment...more

SCOTUS rules exhaustion of administrative remedies is not jurisdictional – Does it matter?

Eversheds Sutherland (US) LLP on 6/5/2019

On June 3, 2019, the Supreme Court issued a unanimous decision holding that Title VII’s administrative exhaustion requirement is not a jurisdictional bar to filing a lawsuit in court. The lawsuit involved an individual, Lois...more

When a Third-Party Defendant is Not a Defendant – Supreme Court Reinforces Removal Loophole

BakerHostetler on 6/5/2019

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

U.S. Supreme Court limits employer defense to federal discrimination claims

Bricker Graydon LLP on 6/5/2019

The U.S. Supreme Court recently delivered an important decision limiting an employer’s ability to dismiss federal employment discrimination lawsuits under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964. In Fort Bend County v....more

Supreme Court Rules that Employers Must Timely Raise Exhaustion of Administrative Remedies in Title VII Claims or Risk Forfeiting...

Ballard Spahr LLP on 6/5/2019

On Monday, June 3, 2019, the U.S. Supreme Court issued a decision in Fort Bend County v. Davis, unanimously finding that Title VII’s administrative exhaustion requirement is not jurisdictional and that employers may forfeit...more

“Any” Doesn’t Mean “All”: In Home Depot, SCOTUS Says “Any Defendant” Doesn’t Include Third-party Defendants Facing Class Claims

Bradley Arant Boult Cummings LLP on 6/4/2019

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

The Supreme Court Concludes that Title VII’s Charge Filing Requirement is not Jurisdictional

Butler Snow LLP on 6/4/2019

On June 3, 2019, the U.S. Supreme Court concluded that the requirement set forth in Title VII to the Civil Rights Act of 1964 that a plaintiff must first exhaust her administrative remedies with the EEOC before filing suit is...more

Supreme Court Rules That Employers Can Be Forced To Defend Against Actions Under Title VII Not Properly Brought Before the EEOC

Sheppard Mullin Richter & Hampton LLP on 6/4/2019

Resolving a circuit split regarding the jurisdictional nature of Title VII’s charge-filing requirement—the statutory requirement that an employee who alleges that he or she has been subjected to unlawful treatment is required...more

Employers, Beware: SCOTUS Ruling Creates Title VII Litigation Trap

Fisher Phillips on 6/4/2019

The U.S. Supreme Court unanimously ruled today that Title VII’s administrative exhaustion requirement—whereby an aggrieved employee first must file a claim with the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (“EEOC”) or a state...more

Supreme Court Holds That Third-Party Counterclaim Defendants May Not Remove An Action Based On The General Removal Statute Or CAFA

A&O Shearman on 6/4/2019

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

Supreme Court Holds EEOC Charge-Filing Requirement is Not Jurisdictional

Littler on 6/4/2019

On June 3, 2019, the U.S. Supreme Court held in Fort Bend County v. Davis that the requirement to file a charge of discrimination with the EEOC (or relevant state or local agency) is not a jurisdictional prescription to a...more

43 Results

View per page

Page: of 2

Supreme Court of the United States › Jurisdiction › Federal Rules of Civil Procedure

"My best business intelligence, in one easy email…"