On Wednesday, the United States Supreme Court handed down its opinion in another of this term’s major class action cases. Following on the heels of Standard Fire Insurance Co. v. Knowles, where the Court closed a loophole which had allowed plaintiffs to attempt to stipulate around the threat of removal to Federal court pursuant to the … Continue Reading
In April 2011, the U.S. Supreme Court handed down its landmark opinion in AT&T Mobility v. Concepcion, holding that the Federal Arbitration Act preempted California’s Discover Bank rule, which had previously voided waivers of class arbitration in most consumer cases. In the nearly two years since Concepcion, the courts and the defense bar have been wrestling … Continue Reading
On Tuesday morning, a unanimous U.S. Supreme Court decisively closed a loophole in the Class Action Fairness Act, holding in Standard Fire Insurance Co. v. Knowles that a purported stipulation by the named plaintiff to seek less than the $5 million jurisdictional threshold was irrelevant for purposes of determining whether Federal jurisdiction over the class … Continue Reading
As I’ve noted in several previous posts, (see here, and here, and here), the new term at the U.S. Supreme Court is shaping up as a major one for class action litigation. Today I preview Whirlpool Corp. v. Glazer, a case still in the petition stage which the Court will likely consider in a December conference. Review … Continue Reading
As I’ve noted in earlier posts (see here and here), this is shaping up as an important term for the class action defense bar at the United States Supreme Court. Late last month, the Court added another important question to its docket, granting certiorari in Maracich v. Spears. In Maracich, the Court will decide whether … Continue Reading
By any definition, it’s a crisis: your client receives a summons and complaint for a putative class action in Federal court. Can you close down the case in the starting gate by just giving the named plaintiff what he or she wants — filing a Rule 68 Offer of Judgment for all requested relief, plus … Continue Reading
In the closing days of its term, the Supreme Court announced that it had granted certiorari in Comcast Corporation v. Behrend, setting up what is certain to be a major battle over expert testimony and class certification hearings. Behrend arises from what appears to be the largest certified class in history – more than two … Continue Reading
The Supreme Court’s decision overturning the certification of the massive gender discrimination class in Wal-Mart v. Dukes [pdf] has been well-publicized. We go behind the headlines, therefore, to offer a few educated guesses as to what the case will mean for the future of class actions and other forms of aggregate litigation: Statewide classes barred on state … Continue Reading
In his recent article in the online magazine, Slate, Richard Thompson Ford discusses the key class action case, Wal-Mart v. Dukes, currently pending before the Supreme Court. Ford notes some of the problems of handling such an enormous number of claims as class actions. Under the Dukes trial plan, each class member’s entitlement to back pay … Continue Reading
In a 5-4 decision, the U.S. Supreme Court has reaffirmed the right of businesses to compel arbitration of consumer complaints, and to block class action litigation through the enforcement of individual arbitration agreements. In so holding, the Court invalidated the prior California Supreme Court rule in Discover Bank v. Superior Court, 36 Cal.4th 148 (2005) that … Continue Reading
The California Supreme Court has declared that “labels matter,” and that under California’s Unfair Competition Law, a consumer’s subjective sense of feeling duped translates to a cognizable economic injury. The Court’s majority opinion in Kwikset Corporation v. Superior Court (.pdf), issued today, January 27th, held that plaintiffs “who can truthfully allege they were deceived by … Continue Reading
Last week, the Illinois Supreme Court allowed petitions for leave to appeal in eight new civil cases. They are: Uldrych v. VHS of Illinois, Inc., Williams v. Board of Review, 2010 WL 743894 (1st Dist., 2010), which involves the question of whether implied indemnity actions are subject to the four-year statute of repose governing actions … Continue Reading
