June 10, 2013 2:40 PM | Posted by D. Matthew Allen |
Permalink
The Supreme Court today decided Oxford Health Plans LLC v. Sutter. This decision expands the scope of class actions in arbitration. In Oxford Health, the court took back what the court gave in Stolt-Nielsen, where the court had ruled that an arbitrator may not order a class arbitration when the parties’ contract is silent on the point. Here, the contract seemed to be silent, but was broadly written. Too broadly written, as it turned out. read more
|
June 5, 2013 4:02 PM | Posted by Adam Koppel |
Permalink
In Fidelity National Title Ins. Co. v. Grosso, 110 So. 3d 521 (Fla. 4th DCA 2012), Plaintiffs filed a class action complaint they alleged complied with Florida Rules of Civil Procedure 1.220(a) and 1.220(b)(3). After a hearing to determine whether class certification was appropriate, the trial court granted class certification. The trial court, however, failed to make factual findings or conclusions of law in its order. read more
|
June 5, 2013 10:22 AM | Posted by Alina Alonso Rodriguez |
Permalink
In Anderson v. King America Finishing, Inc., No. 1:11-cv-2258-JEC, 2013 WL 1213267 (N.D. Ga. March 25, 2013), class action plaintiffs alleged that defendant released a toxic chemical into the Ogeechee River from its manufacturing plant in Dover, Georgia. Plaintiffs alleged both damage to surrounding land and physical injuries to those who swam in the river. The court rejected plaintiff’s attempt to remand based on the “local controversy” exception to CAFA jurisdiction. read more
|
June 5, 2013 8:39 AM | Posted by Alina Alonso Rodriguez |
Permalink
In re : Darvocet, Darvon and Propoxyphere Prods. Liab. Litig., MDL No. 2226, 2013 WL 1635469 (April 17, 2013), the U.S. Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation considered a motion to transfer three action. The focus of the panel’s decision was CAFA’s “mass action” provisions and its effect on MDL transfers. read more
|
May 31, 2013 2:48 PM | Posted by Joshua E. Roberts |
Permalink
In In re: HP Inkjet Printer Litigation, Case No. C05-3580-JF, 2013 WL 1986396 (9th Cir. May 15, 2013), the Ninth Circuit recently held that attorney fee awards in class settlements involving coupons must be “attributable to” the value of the coupons awarded to class members. How does this holding affect the settlement between Hewlett-Packard and a nationwide class of consumers who purchased certain HP inkjet printers? read more
|
May 28, 2013 3:31 PM | Posted by D. Matthew Allen |
Permalink
Breaking news: The Supreme Court today accepted certiorari in Mississippi ex rel. Hood v. AU Optronics Corp., Docket No. 12-1036. The court will take up the question of whether a state’s parens patriae action is removable as a “mass action” pursuant to the Class Action Fairness Act when the state is the sole plaintiff and the claims arise under state law. The Fifth Circuit has held that such a case is removable. The Fourth, Seventh, and Ninth Circuits have held that it is not. read more
|
May 21, 2013 11:21 AM | Posted by D. Matthew Allen |
Permalink
|
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
|