Showing 23 posts in Federal.
The United States District Court for the Southern District of Ohio recently ruled
against a monthly purchaser of vodka who brought suit on behalf of herself and
class members on several claims, including class claims under the Ohio Consumer
Sales Practices Act and the Ohio Deceptive Trade Practices Act. Read More ›
Deepwater Horizon Class Action Saga Continues as Fifth Circuit Affirms District Court's Certification of One Class and Denial of Another
Last Monday the Fifth Circuit affirmed a Texas district court’s decision certifying one class of BP PLC shareholders suing BP over the Deepwater Horizon disaster, and denying certification of another class of shareholders who purchased BP Stock prior to the explosion. Ludlow v. BP, P.L.C., No. 14-20420, (5th Cir. Sept. 8, 2015). The plaintiffs sought certification of two classes: one for pre-spill representations relating to the risk of an oil spill, and one for post-spill misrepresentations. The district court certified the post-spill class, but denied certification of the pre-spill class. The district court found that the post-spill class of plaintiffs had appropriately established a model of damages consistent with their liability case, and capable of measurement across the class, as required by the Supreme Court’s decision in Comcast Corp. v. Behrend, 133 S.Ct. 1426, 185 L.Ed.2d 515 (2013). However, it refused to certify the pre-spill class because this proposed class of shareholders failed to satisfy Comcast’s common damages requirement. Both plaintiffs and BP appealed the district court’s decision to the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals. Read More ›
The U. S. Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit recently held that the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure do not impose a heightened ascertainablity requirement for class certification, despite precedent to the contrary elsewhere. In Mullins v. Direct Digital, LLC, No. 15-1776, 2015 WL 4546159 (7th Cir. Jul. 28, 2015), the Court of Appeals affirmed the court below, which had granted the motion to certify. The case was a consumer fraud case, brought by a consumer who had purchased a dietary supplement for joints. The plaintiff filed a motion to certify the class of consumers who purchased the supplement for personal use during a certain time period. After the case was certified under Rule 23(b)(3), the defendant filed an interlocutory appeal, and the Court of Appeals heard the appeal under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23(f). The Court proceeded “to address whether Rule 23(b)(3) imposes a heightened ‘ascertainability’ requirement as the Third Circuit and some district courts have held recently.” Id., at *1. Read More ›
In Hooks v. Landmark Indus., Inc., No. 14-20496 (8/12/2015), the Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit joined a minority of the federal appellate courts in holding that "an unaccepted offer of judgment cannot moot a named-plaintiff’s claim in a putative class action[.]" Slip Op., at 2. Read More ›
Fraud claims are generally ill-suited for class action treatment. In nearly any class action involving fraud, plaintiffs face an uphill battle in establishing class-wide exposure to the alleged misrepresentations, which is only an initial element of the claim. A recent federal court decision (Simmons v. Author Solutions, LLC, No. 13cv2801, 2015 WL 4002243 (July 1, 2015)) nicely illustrates the difficulty plaintiffs face. Read More ›
Ninth Circuit Panel Rejects Duty to Correct Pre-class Period Statements; Affirms Dismissal of Yahoo! Securities Litigation
In re Yahoo! Inc. Securities Lit., No. 12-17080 (9th Cir. 5/15/2015) (unpublished), the Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit affirmed dismissal of a class action securities fraud complaint that was based upon alleged misstatements or omissions concerning Yahoo's investment in the Alibaba Group online & mobile marketplace (www.alibabagroup.com/en/global/home). Read More ›
Dow Chemical, Tyson Foods, Wal-Mart and Allstate Insurance: Will SCOTUS Clean Up its Class Action Mess?
Will the Supreme Court reiterate its findings in Dukes and Comcast in 4 cases pending before it? Read More ›
Google Wallet: What’s Your Privacy Really Worth and Do You Have the Class Action Standing to Protect It?
Google Wallet privacy standing decision presents troubling issues. Read More ›
Northern District of Illinois' Decision Gives Hope to Defendants Facing Class Actions in Unfriendly Venues.
The Northern District of Illinois recently issued a decision highlighting a class action defendant’s ability to transfer venues based on the parties’ convenience. The court transferred a putative class action from the location of the defendant’s principal place of business in Chicago, Illinois, to where the putative class members resided in San Antonio, Texas. In doing so, the court transferred the case to a less plaintiff-friendly venue, the Western District of Texas. This decision provides a useful addition to the toolbox of class action defendants that find themselves in unappealing venues. Read More ›
Purina Seeks Certiorari Review of Federal District Court’s Ability to Enjoin Parallel State Litigation
Nestle Purina PetCare Company has sought certiorari review from the United States Supreme Court of a Federal District Court’s ability to enjoin parallel state proceedings under the All Writs Act and the Anti-Injunction Act. Nestle Purina PetCare Co. v. Curts, 2015 WL 1250861 (U.S.). Purina is seeking to reverse the 7th Circuit’s ruling that the District Court’s entry of an injunction against parallel state class litigation while final approval of class settlement is pending was improper. A ruling on this could have a serious impact on how class actions, and particularly class settlements, proceed in the future. Read More ›
Ask the Blogger
Do you have a topic that you would like discussed in a future blog article? Please let us know. If you have a confidential question regarding a blog article, please feel free to contact the article's author directly, or let us know if you would like for someone to contact you directly.
Stephen E. Embry is a member of the Firm's class action, privacy and mass tort groups. He frequently defends participants in consumer class actions and mass tort litigation. Stephen is a national litigator and advisor who is experienced in developing solutions to complex litigation and corporate problems.