May 6, 2013 5:30 PM | Posted by Jennifer McPheeters |
Permalink
In Harden Manufacturing Co. v. Pfizer, Inc., 712 F.3d 60 (1st Cir. 2013), one of three cases addressing Pfizer’s off-label marketing of the anticonvulsant drug, Neurontin, the First Circuit vacated the district court’s denial of certification as to a putative class of third-party payors and remanded for further proceedings. The court relied on its holdings pertaining to RICO causation in the lead case, Kaiser Foundation Health Plan, Inc. v. Pfizer, Inc., 712 F.3d 21 (1st Cir. 2013), to conclude the district court’s decision about the Harden plaintiffs’ second motion for class certification required further analysis, specifically as it related to proof of causation and damages. read more
|
May 3, 2013 3:04 PM | Posted by Christina M. Calhoun |
Permalink
The 2013 Carlton Fields Class Action Survey Report is here! Get the latest insights on managing class actions in this survey of more than 360 general counsel and chief legal officers at major corporations in this free report. The survey covers topics ranging from risk mitigation tools and the impact of recent case law to cost control approaches and alternative fee arrangements. read more
|
April 30, 2013 4:09 PM | Posted by Christina M. Calhoun |
Permalink
What is the most common type of Class Action Matter? Consumer fraud? Labor and Employment? Securities? Discover how these class action litigation categories and others ranked when the 2013 Carlton Fields Class Action Survey on Best Practices in Reducing Cost and Managing Risk in Class Action Litigation is released. read more
|
April 28, 2013 4:53 PM | Posted by Kirkwood, Allison |
Permalink
Florida defendants can now be assured that Concepcion applies in Florida to state statutory claims. read more
|
April 17, 2013 8:15 AM | Posted by Roberts, Joshua |
Permalink
In a 5-3 decision written by Justice Thomas, the Supreme Court made clear that class actions under Rule 23 are “fundamentally different” from collective actions under the Fair Labor Standards Act. read more
|
March 27, 2013 5:10 PM | Posted by Joshua E. Roberts |
Permalink
After months of anticipation, the Supreme Court finally released its decision in Comcast Corp. v. Behrend, No. 11–864. In a 5-4 decision authored by Justice Scalia, the Court reversed the certification of a 23(b)(3) class of Comcast cable-television customers located in the metropolitan Philadelphia market. The purported class was attempting to bring an antitrust case against Comcast for allegedly overcharging its cable subscribers. Why did the Court deny class certification and what does this mean for class-action defendants going forward? read more
|
March 22, 2013 11:37 AM | Posted by Adam J. Koppel |
Permalink
In Law Offices of David J. Stern, P.A. v. Hewitt, 106 So. 3d 489 (Fla. 4th DCA 2013), the District Court of Appeal of the Fourth District of Florida reviewed a trial court order certifying a class of homeowners in an action against the Law Offices of David J. Stern, and its managing partner. Why did the Court affirm class certification? read more
|
March 19, 2013 3:01 PM | Posted by D. Matthew Allen |
Permalink
The Supreme Court issued the second decision this term that will impact class action law. The issue in Standard Fire Ins. Co. v. Knowles, No. 11-1450 (March 19, 2013) concerned the common practice of a plaintiff who files a class action in state court (typically in a “hell hole” jurisdiction for defendants), and in the complaint stipulates, prior to certification of the class, that he and the class he seeks to represent will not seek damages that exceed $5 million in total. The goal, of course, is to thwart the defendant’s ability to remove the case to federal court. The Court unanimously held that such a stipulation does not have its intended effect and neither binds the class nor removes the case from CAFA’s scope. See the Court’s reasoning below the fold. read more
|
February 28, 2013 11:13 AM | Posted by Joshua E. Roberts |
Permalink
According to the Supreme Court’s decision in Amgen Inc. v. Connecticut Retirement Plans and Trust Funds, No. 11-1085, (U.S., Feb. 27, 2013), the Supreme Court held that plaintiffs in securities fraud cases need not prove material reliance prior to class certification – materiality can be put on hold. This highly anticipated decision is sure to send ripples through the class action world. Find out more after the jump. read more
|
February 8, 2013 11:10 AM | Posted by Adam J. Koppel |
Permalink
In Baldwin v. Regions Financial Corp., 98 So. 3d 1201 (Fla. 3d DCA 2012), the District Court of Appeal of the Third District of Florida held that an arbitration clause of a loan agreement, containing a class action waiver, was not void as being against public policy by being contrary to the remedies provided by the Florida Consumer Collection Practices Act (FCCPA). read more
|
January 24, 2013 3:13 PM | Posted by D. Matthew Allen |
Permalink
The Florida Supreme Court issued in intriguing opinion in Soper v. Tire Kingdom, Inc., No. SC11-1462, which provokes questions about the trajectory of Florida class action law. In Tire Kingdom, the court reversed and remanded the Third District’s decision in Tire Kingdom, Inc. v. Dishkin, 81 So. 3d 437 (Fla. 3d DCA 2011), apparently without allowing briefing by the parties on the merits. Is this a “sea change” in Florida law? read more
|
November 26, 2012 8:22 AM | Posted by Roberts, Joshua |
Permalink
The Supreme Court heard oral argument this month in Comcast Corp. et al. v. Behrend et al., No. 11-864, where the parties fought over whether the lower courts took a close enough look at plaintiffs’ model for damages. The issues underlying oral arguments concerned … read more
|
October 30, 2012 1:43 PM | Posted by Roberts, Joshua |
Permalink
On September 5th we blogged about the fact that the Supreme Court agreed to hear Standard Fire Insurance Company’s plea to remove a class action lawsuit that was filed against it, to federal court. This case is of great importance to all future class action defendants as the Supreme Court will decide whether a named plaintiff can defeat a defendant’s right of removal (to federal court) under the Class Action Fairness Act (“CAFA”) by filing a class action complaint with a stipulation that limits damages for putative class members to less than $5 million. Five million dollars is the magic number because that is the threshold amount for federal jurisdiction. If the Court allows such a stipulation, class action plaintiffs everywhere could use such stipulations to prevent defendants from removing cases from plaintiff-friendly state courts.
On October 22, 2012 Standard Fire filed its merits brief. See The Standard Fire Insurance Company v. Knowles, 2012 WL 5246242 (U.S.) (Appellate Brief). Find out what was argued in the brief after the jump. read more
|
October 16, 2012 5:27 PM | Posted by Morande, Dean |
Permalink
What happens if a district court provides five alternative bases to deny class certification, and the appellant fails to refute one of those bases in its initial brief to the Eleventh Circuit? read more
|
October 16, 2012 5:25 PM | Posted by Morande, Dean |
Permalink
In Ault v. Walt Disney World Co., 692 F.3d 1212 (11th Cir. 2012), a class settlement was reached in a suit alleging that Disney’s policy banning the use of two-wheeled vehicles violated Title III. The settlement involved Disney’s agreement to implement a four-wheeled stand-up mobility vehicle. Objectors to the settlement asserted that the settlement should have been rejected, both because the class representatives lacked typicality and because the class settlement was not fair. Both the district court and the Eleventh Circuit disagreed. read more
|
October 10, 2012 5:14 PM | Posted by D. Matt Allen |
Permalink
Oxford University Press has released two new books on class actions that the practitioner may find helpful. read more
|
September 5, 2012 12:28 PM | Posted by Roberts, Joshua |
Permalink
The U.S. Supreme Court has agreed to hear its first Class Action Fairness Act case – Standard Fire Insurance Co. v. Knowles, U.S., No. 11-1450, cert. granted Aug. 31, 2012. The case stems from damage sustained to Plaintiff, Greg Knowles’ home due to a March 2010 hail storm. Knowles claims that Standard Fire failed to pay his (and other similarly situated individuals’) full insurance reimbursement. read more
|
August 27, 2012 3:20 PM | Posted by Morande, Dean |
Permalink
The Eleventh Circuit in Pendergast v. Sprint, No. 09-10612 (11th Cir. Aug. 20, 2012), upheld Sprint’s class action waiver without resorting to an analysis of whether the waiver is unconscionable under Florida law or if it frustrates the remedial purposes of the Florida Deceptive and Unfair Trade Practices Act. This was so because, according to the Court, “to the extent Florida law would invalidate the class action waiver, it would still be preempted by the FAA” [Federal Arbitration Act]. read more
|
August 22, 2012 7:08 PM | Posted by Cheek, Christopher |
Permalink
In Frederick v. Hartford Underwriters Ins. Co., 683 F.3d 1242 (10th Cir. 2012), the Tenth Circuit decided to apply a preponderance of the evidence standard for proving the amount in controversy when presented with a class action plaintiff who requested damages below the jurisdictional minimum. read more
|
August 17, 2012 9:30 AM | Posted by Clark, Johanna |
Permalink
Judge Moody of the Middle District strikes class action allegations again stating, "[w]here the propriety of a class action procedure is plain from the initial pleadings, a district court may rule on this issue prior to the filing of a motion for class certification." read more
|