Law School Toolbox Podcast Episode 332: Listen and Learn -- Removal (Civ Pro)
Bar Exam Toolbox Podcast Episode 163: Listen and Learn -- Removal (Civ Pro)
Bar Exam Toolbox Podcast Episode 145: Listen and Learn -- Permissive Joinder and Required Joinder
Law School Toolbox Podcast Episode 263: Listen and Learn -- Subject Matter Jurisdiction
Bar Exam Toolbox Podcast Episode 92: Listen and Learn -- Subject Matter Jurisdiction
Bar Exam Toolbox Podcast Episode 72: Tackling a California Bar Exam Essay: Civil Procedure
Our notable ruling roundup aims to keep our readers up to date on recent rulings in the food & consumer packaged goods space. Terri Little v. Naturestar North America, LLC, et al., No. 1:22-cv-00232-JLT-EPG (E.D. Cal. –...more
This week, the Court holds that it may sua sponte question the existence of subject-matter jurisdiction under the Class Action Fairness Act (“CAFA”) in a removed case where a defendant’s notice of removal alleged the...more
A federal judge in Illinois recently ruled that online shoppers cannot sustain claims that a virtual try-on (VTO) tool that allegedly scans facial geometry to preview the look of sunglasses on their face violates the...more
A 10-Point Response Plan - The company was just sued in a putative class action. Now what? The following 10-point response plan broadly outlines the initial steps to implementing a comprehensive class action defense,...more
On Monday and Tuesday of this week, the United States Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit issued a series of decisions addressing the Article III standing of consumer plaintiffs alleging violations of the Fair Debt...more
Interpreting Bristol-Myers : Are Unnamed Members of Nationwide Class Actions ‘Parties’? If So, When? In 2017, the Supreme Court decided Bristol-Myers Squibb Co. v. Superior Court of California (BMS), holding that a...more
Resolving an issue of first impression before it, the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit held that the Class Action Fairness Act of 2005 (CAFA) “may not be used to evade the specific numerosity requirement”...more
In the March edition of Predominant Issues, we reported on the first two appellate decisions (from the D.C. and Seventh Circuits) to address whether the Supreme Court’s landmark personal jurisdiction decision in Bristol-Myers...more
The Seventh Circuit remanded an Instagram user’s appeal after the court found that Groupon’s notice of removal did not allege the citizenship of any diverse member of the putative class. The decision highlights the importance...more
Late last year, we wrote about Shore v. The Charlotte-Mecklenburg Hospital Authority, et al., in which former Atrium Health employees filed a putative class action in the U.S. District Court for the Middle District of North...more
In a recent decision by the Fourth Circuit, Big Picture Loans, LLC, an online lender owned and operated by the Lac Vieux Desert Band of Lake Superior Chippewa Indians, a federally recognized Indian tribe (“Tribe”), and...more
Challenges based on lack of standing can be brought at any time and, in Friends of the Earth v. Sanderson Farms, Inc., 2019 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 127964 (N.D. Cal. July 31, 2019), the court dismissed a putative class action for...more
Massachusetts state and federal courts issued a number of important product liability decisions in 2018. The Product Liability practice group at Nutter recently reviewed these cases. Highlighted below are some of the key...more
A federal district court in the Northern District of Illinois dismissed a putative class action alleging violations of the Illinois Biometric Information Privacy Act — known as the BIPA — holding that the allegation of a mere...more
Seyfarth Synopsis: In a lawsuit brought by a plaintiff class action firm alleging that objectors to class action settlements violated both RICO and Illinois state law by filing frivolous objections in order to seek payouts,...more
Have the GOP’s Hopes for Enacting the Fairness in Class Action Litigation Act Been Dashed? – Passed in March 2017 by the U.S. House of Representatives, the Fairness in Class Action Litigation Act of 2017, H.R. 985, has...more
The U.S. District Court for the Central District of California recently dismissed a putative class action alleging violations of the Fair Credit Reporting Act (“FCRA”), finding that the named plaintiff lacked standing to...more
On May 23, 2017, the Acting Solicitor General (“ASG”) filed a brief on behalf of the United States as amicus curiae urging the Supreme Court to grant the petition for a writ of certiorari in Cyan,Inc. v. Beaver County...more
On March 29, 2017, Chief District Judge Lee Rosenthal of the United States District Court for the Southern District of Texas, Houston Division dismissed a putative class action against Plains All American Pipeline, a major...more
Gallego v. Northland Grp. Inc., No. 15-1666-CV, 2016 WL 697383 (2d Cir. Feb. 22, 2016) - Debtor brought a class action against a debt collector alleging violations of the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act (FDCPA) by...more
In another blow to legal arguments that student-athletes should be paid as employees, the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Indiana recently concluded that student-athletes at the University of Pennsylvania...more
On January 20, 2016, in a highly anticipated decision (see October 27, 2015 blog) that will have implications for class action practice nationwide, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled that an unaccepted offer of judgment sufficient...more
A divided Supreme Court ruled today in Campbell-Ewald Co. v. Gomez, No. 14-857, that an unaccepted Rule 68 offer of judgment by a defendant cannot moot a putative class action. The decision settles a reserved question from...more
The U.S. Supreme Court heard oral argument in Campbell-Ewald Co. v. Gomez on October 14, 2015, an important case presenting the question of whether a defendant can defeat a class action by offering complete individual relief...more
On July 21, 2015, a federal judge granted AXA Equitable Life Insurance Company’s motion to dismiss claims brought against it by insureds who alleged that AXA violated New York law by engaging in various “shadow insurance”...more