Invitation To Clarify How Plaintiffs Prove Class Membership --By David Kouba, Arnold & Porter LLP
|
|
- Roxanne Juliana Hampton
- 5 years ago
- Views:
Transcription
1 Published by Appellate Law 360, Class Action Law360, Consumer Protection Law360, Life Sciences Law360, and Product Liability Law360 on November 12, Invitation To Clarify How Plaintiffs Prove Class Membership --By David Kouba, Arnold & Porter LLP Law360, New York (November 12, 2015, 4:20 PM ET) --In recent years, a growing number of federal courts at both the circuit and district level have considered what plaintiffs must demonstrate at the class certification stage to show that claimants will later be able to establish their membership in the proposed class. These decisions fall into two, sharply divided groups: those that only require an objective definition, and those that also require an administratively feasible way to determine who meets that definition. On Oct. 26, 2015, the defendant in one of these cases Mullins v. Direct Digital LLC asked the U.S. Supreme Court to grant review to decide which standard applies. If the court says yes and there are compelling reasons it might it should follow the second approach and require an administratively feasible way to determine class membership. This approach is both required by the court s recent decisions and due process and consistent with the trial court s obligation to undertake a rigorous analysis at the class certification stage. Carrera and the Requirement of Administrative Feasibility Courts have long recognized that there must be a way to determine who is in a class action, i.e., that class membership is ascertainable. Courts also have frequently recognized that certification should be denied when the question of class membership raises inherently individual issues. In 2013, the Third Circuit concluded in Carrera v. Bayer Corp. a decision that since has been cited frequently by courts and commentators that a class of multivitamin purchasers was not ascertainable and thus could not be certified. The court explained that ascertainability requires an objective class definition (such as the residents of a state who purchased a product during a certain year) and an administratively feasible way to determine who satisfies that definition (such as receipts or purchase records). The court then reasoned that the plaintiffs could not meet these requirements because they had no objective proofs of purchase, and the use of affidavits to prove class membership would deprive the defendant of its right to cross-examine claimants: [a] defendant has a similar, if not the same, due process right to challenge the proof used to demonstrate class membership as it does to challenge the elements of a plaintiff s claim. The court further recognized that a defendant has an interest in ensuring it pays only legitimate claims to avoid the risk that somebody later challenges the judgment by arguing that fraudulent or inaccurate claims materially reduce[d] true class members relief. [1] Since Carrera, other circuits have imposed similar requirements. The Eleventh Circuit, for example, expressly relied upon Carrera in Karhu v. Vital Pharmaceuticals Inc. when holding that a class of dietary supplement purchasers could not be certified. The court explained that plaintiffs cannot satisfy the ascertainability requirement by proposing that class members selfidentify, such as with sworn affidavits, without first establishing that self-identification would be administratively feasible and not otherwise problematic. When doing so, the court also rejected the plaintiff s argument that defendants have no due-process right against unverified selfidentification when total liability will be established at trial, and will not change depending on the number of claims actually made. [2]
2 Two other circuits have likewise recognized recently, without expressly relying on Carrera, that ascertainability requires that questions of class membership be administratively feasible. In EQT Production Co. v. Adair, the Fourth Circuit concluded that owners of subsurface gas rights could not proceed as a class action to recover unpaid royalties, because former and current owners of gas estates could not be identified without individual inquiries. As the court explained, ascertainability requires that the trial court give greater consideration to the administrative challenges it will face when determining class membership and assess whether any trial management tools are available to ease this process. [3] Likewise, in Brecher v. Republic of Argentina, the Second Circuit explained that ascertainability turns on whether a class is sufficiently definite so that it is administratively feasible for the court to determine whether a particular individual is a member, and held that a class comprised of the holders of beneficial interests in certain bonds did not meet this requirement because they could not be identified without individual mini-trials.[4] In addition, district courts across the country have repeatedly denied certification on ascertainability grounds after concluding that it would not be administratively feasible to determine class membership.[5] As in Carrera, these courts have recognized that due process guarantees defendants an opportunity to challenge each claimant s membership in the class. The Sixth and Seventh Circuits Reject the Carrera Approach Not every court has embraced the reasoning of Carrera or required that class membership be administratively feasible. To the contrary, two circuit courts and a handful of district courts have expressly declined to impose this requirement.[6] Last summer, the Seventh Circuit concluded that a trial court had not erred when certifying a class of dietary supplement purchasers, even though there were no objective records that identified every class member. The court explained that a class must be defined clearly and that membership be defined by objective criteria, but went on to hold that it was not necessary to demonstrate administrative feasibility. As the court reasoned, [n]othing in Rule 23 mentions or implies this heightened requirement under Rule 23(b)(3), and a heightened ascertainability requirement would have the effect of barring class actions where class treatment is often most needed: in cases involving relatively low-cost goods or services, where consumers are unlikely to have documentary proof of purchase. [7] One month later, the Sixth Circuit relied upon Mullins when affirming class certification for a class of probiotic purchasers. The court explained that class certification did not require that plaintiffs demonstrate at the certification stage how they would establish class membership and further reasoned that the approach in Carrera would undermine the very purpose of class action remedies by making certification more difficult. The court also concluded that, even though class membership would turn upon a substantial review of internal data from defendant, this review could be supplemented through the use of receipts, affidavits, and a special master to review individual claims. [8] Ascertainability Reaches the Supreme Court in Mullins The division in how courts have addressed ascertainability and administrative feasibility recently reached the steps of the U.S. Supreme Court when the defendant in Mullins asked the court to review the Seventh Circuit s decision. There are good reasons why the court might grant that request.
3 First, as discussed above, there is a sharp divide between the approach taken by the Second, Third, Fourth and Eleventh Circuits and numerous district courts and the approach taken by the Sixth and Seventh Circuits and other district courts. Second, there is a compelling need to provide guidance to the lower courts on this issue. Ascertainability is a recurring question that will continue to arise frequently in class actions. In fact, the issue is currently before the Ninth Circuit.[9] Third, the court has shown an increased interest in class certification over the last few years, including its landmark decisions in Comcast Corp. v. Behrend[10] and Wal-Mart Stores Inc. v. Dukes[11] and more recent cases still pending before the court.[12] The Court s Recent Decisions, Rule 23 and Due Process Require a Heightened Ascertainability Standard If and when the court addresses ascertainability whether that be in Mullins or a subsequent case such as Jones it should adopt the approach described in Carrera and require that plaintiffs demonstrate at the class certification stage that it will be administratively feasible to determine who falls within the class definition. Despite its detractors, the principles underlying this approach are neither controversial nor complicated to the contrary, they are found in the Supreme Court s class certification jurisprudence, the text of federal Rule 23 and long-standing principles of due process. The court recently confirmed that a class action is an exception to the usual rule that litigation is conducted by and on behalf of the individual named parties only, [13] and therefore Rule 23 imposes stringent requirements for certification that in practice exclude most claims. [14] Trial courts thus must undertake a rigorous analysis at the certification stage and cannot certify a class unless plaintiffs offer evidentiary proof that affirmatively demonstrate[s] the requirements of Rule 23(b)(3) are satisfied.[15] As part of this analysis, courts must determine whether plaintiffs have demonstrated that a class action would be superior to other available methods for fairly and efficiently adjudicating the controversy, including the likely difficulties in managing a class action, and whether common issues predominate over issues that are specific to each class member.[16] There can be little dispute that these requirements are difficult to establish when the threshold question of who is even in the class would necessitate individual mini-trials. Supreme Court authority also supports the conclusion in Carrera that defendants have a due process right to challenge each individual s class membership. Rule 23 is grounded in due process, [17] and requires that there be an opportunity to present every available defense [18] and confront and cross-examine adverse witnesses. [19] In addition, under the Rules Enabling Act, courts cannot use Rule 23 in a way that would abridge, enlarge or modify any substantive right. [20] Any proposition that parties can submit unchallenged affidavits to establish claims and recover money is a direct affront to these principles. Furthermore, defendants have a right to ensure that fraudulent claims do not dilute the amount of funds available to true class members and jeopardize a judgment s finality. Moreover, the mere fact that requiring administrative feasibility might, in some instances, make certification harder to obtain does not warrant a relaxing those standards. To the contrary, the principles that require proof of class membership are not mere guidelines that can be eliminated. The requirement of administrative feasibility, however, does not make class actions obsolete, as some critics of Carrera have suggested. To the contrary, in many cases, there will
4 be objective records available to determine class membership. Indeed, even after Carrera, the Third Circuit concluded in Byrd v. Aaron s Inc. that, under the facts of that case, there was a reliable and administratively feasible method for assessing class membership.[21] * * * There is no way to forecast the Supreme Court s response to the Mullins petition with complete accuracy. But if he court chooses to use this opportunity address the ascertainability, it should require that plaintiffs demonstrate, as a prerequisite to class certification, that it will be administratively feasible to determine who satisfies the class definition. David Kouba is a counsel in Arnold & Porter's Washington, D.C., office. The opinions expressed are those of the author(s) and do not necessarily reflect the views of the firm, its clients, or Portfolio Media Inc., or any of its or their respective affiliates. This article is for general information purposes and is not intended to be and should not be taken as legal advice. [1] Carrera v. Bayer Corp., 727 F.3d 300 (3d Cir. 2013). [2] Karhu v. Vital Pharmaceuticals, Inc., -- F. App x --, 2015 WL (11th Cir. June 9, 2015). [3] EQT Production Co. v. Adair, 764 F.3d 347 (4th Cir. 2014). [4] Brecher v. Republic of Argentina, 802 F.3d 303 (2d Cir. 2015). [5] See, e.g., In re Clorox Consumer Litigation, 2014 WL (N.D. Cal. July 28, 2014); Warnick v. Dish Network LLC, 2014 WL , *4 (D. Colo. Jun 27, 2014). [6] See, e.g., Rikos v. Proctor & Gamble Co., 799 F.3d 497 (6th Cir. 2015); Mullins v. Direct Digital LLC, 795 F.3d 654 (7th Cir. 2015); McCrary v. Elations Co., LLC, 2014 WL , at *8 (C.D. Cal. Jan. 13, 2014); Nieberding v. Barrette Outdoor Living, Inc., 2014 WL , *4 (D. Kan. Sept. 08, 2014). [7] Mullins, 2015 WL [8] Rikos, 799 F.3d 497. [9] Jones v. ConAgra Foods Inc., Case No (9th Cir.). [10] 133 S. Ct (2013). [11] 131 S. Ct (2011). [12] See, e.g., Tyson Foods, Inc. v. Bouaphakeo, No (U.S.). [13] Comcast, 133 S. Ct. at 1432 (citation and quotation omitted). [14] Am. Express Co. v. Italian Colors Rest., Inc., 133 S. Ct. 2304, 2310 (2013).
5 [15] Comcast, 133 S. Ct. at [16] Fed. R. Civ. P. 23(b)(3). [17] Taylor v. Sturgell, 553 U.S. 880, 901 (2008). [18] Lindsey v. Normet, 405 U.S. 56, 66 (1972). [19] Goldberg v. Kelly, 397 U.S. 254 (1970). [20] 28 U.S.C. 2072(b); see also, e.g., Shady Grove Orthopedic Assocs., P.A. v. Allstate Ins. Co., 130 S. Ct. 1431, 1443 (2010). [21] Byrd v. Aaron s Inc., 784 F.3d 154 (3d Cir. 2015
Reliable Analysis Is Key To Addressing Ascertainability
Reliable Analysis Is Key To Addressing Ascertainability By Stephen Cacciola and Stephen Fink; Analysis Group, Inc. Law360, New York (December 8, 2016, 11:15 AM) Stephen Cacciola Stephen Fink There has
More informationClass Action Litigation Report
Class Action Litigation Report Reproduced with permission from Class Action Litigation Report, 16 CLASS 1169, 10/23/2015. Copyright 2015 by The Bureau of National Affairs, Inc. (800-372-1033) http://www.bna.com
More informationGrasping for a Hold on Ascertainability : The Implicit Requirement for Class Certification and its Evolving Application
26 August 2015 Practice Groups: Financial Institutions and Services Litigation Commercial Disputes Consumer Financial Services Class Action Defense Global Government Solutions Grasping for a Hold on Ascertainability
More informationSupreme Court of the United States
No. 15-549 IN THE Supreme Court of the United States DIRECT DIGITAL, LLC, v. Petitioner, VINCE MULLINS, ON PETITION FOR A WRIT OF CERTIORARI TO THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS Respondent. FOR THE SEVENTH
More informationSupreme Court of the United States
No. 16-1221 IN THE Supreme Court of the United States CONAGRA BRANDS, INC., v. ROBERT BRISEÑO, ET AL., Petitioner, Respondents. On Petition For A Writ Of Certiorari To The United States Court Of Appeals
More informationSupreme Court of the United States
No. 16-1221 IN THE Supreme Court of the United States CONAGRA BRANDS, INC., Petitioner, v. ROBERT BRISEÑO ET AL., Respondent. On Petition for a Writ of Certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals
More informationNo IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
Case: 15-80180, 11/03/2015, ID: 9742683, DktEntry: 12-1, Page 1 of 4 (1 of 21) No. 15-80180 IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT KARL E. RISINGER, Plaintiff-Respondent, v. SOC LLC;
More informationCase 9:15-cv KAM Document 167 Entered on FLSD Docket 10/19/2017 Page 1 of 10 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA
Case 9:15-cv-81386-KAM Document 167 Entered on FLSD Docket 10/19/2017 Page 1 of 10 ALEX JACOBS, Plaintiff, vs. QUICKEN LOANS, INC., a Michigan corporation, Defendant. / UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN
More informationIn the Supreme Court of the United States
No. 16-1221 In the Supreme Court of the United States CONAGRA BRANDS, INC., v. Petitioner, ROBERT BRISEÑO, et al., Respondents. On Petition for a Writ of Certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals
More informationI ndependent from the explicit elements of Federal
Class Action Litigation Report Reproduced with permission from Class Action Litigation Report, 17 CLASS 380, 04/08/2016. Copyright 2016 by The Bureau of National Affairs, Inc. (800-372-1033) http://www.bna.com
More informationSupreme Court of the United States
No. 16-1221 IN THE Supreme Court of the United States CONAGRA BRANDS, INC., v. ROBERT BRISEÑO, ET AL., Petitioner, Respondents. On Petition For A Writ Of Certiorari To The United States Court Of Appeals
More informationCase No UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT IN RE HIGH-TECH EMPLOYEE ANTITRUST LITIGATION
Case: 13-80223 11/14/2013 ID: 8863367 DktEntry: 8 Page: 1 of 18 Case No. 13-80223 UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT IN RE HIGH-TECH EMPLOYEE ANTITRUST LITIGATION On Petition for Permission
More informationNo. 15- IN THE Supreme Court of the United States VINCE MULLINS, PETITION FOR A WRIT OF CERTIORARI
No. 15- IN THE Supreme Court of the United States DIRECT DIGITAL, LLC, v. Petitioner, VINCE MULLINS, ON PETITION FOR A WRIT OF CERTIORARI TO THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS Respondent. FOR THE SEVENTH
More informationThe Most Noteworthy Class Action Developments Of 2017
Portfolio Media. Inc. 111 West 19 th Street, 5th Floor New York, NY 10011 www.law360.com Phone: +1 646 783 7100 Fax: +1 646 783 7161 customerservice@law360.com The Most Noteworthy Class Action Developments
More informationNo IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT. DELTA AIRLINES, INC. AND AIRTRAN AIRWAYS INC., Defendants-Appellants.
No. 16-16401 IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT MARTIN SIEGEL, ET AL., Plaintiffs-Appellees, v. DELTA AIRLINES, INC. AND AIRTRAN AIRWAYS INC., Defendants-Appellants. On Appeal
More informationClass Action Litigation Report
Class Action Litigation Report Reproduced with permission from Class Action Litigation Report, 16 CLASS 525, 05/08/2015. Copyright 2015 by The Bureau of National Affairs, Inc. (800-372-1033) http://www.bna.com
More informationHigh Time for the Supreme Court to Review Ascertainability in Class Actions
High Time for the Supreme Court to Review Ascertainability in Class Actions April 18, 2017 Anthony Vale valea@pepperlaw.com Yvonne M. McKenzie mckenziey@pepperlaw.com Mary Margaret Spence spencemm@pepperlaw.com
More informationIN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA MEMORANDUM OPINION
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA JENNIFER UNDERWOOD, on Behalf of Herself and All Others Similarly Situated, Plaintiffs, v. KOHL S DEPARTMENT STORES, INC. and
More informationWal-Mart Stores, Inc. v. Dukes: The Supreme Court Reins In Expansive Class Actions
July 18, 2011 Practice Group: Mortgage Banking & Consumer Financial Products Wal-Mart Stores, Inc. v. Dukes: The Supreme Court Reins In Expansive Class Actions The United States Supreme Court s decision
More informationImpunity for Snake Oil Merchants?: The Seventh Circuit Upholds the Class Action as a Vehicle for Consumer Protection
Seventh Circuit Review Volume 11 Issue 2 Article 5 9-1-2016 Impunity for Snake Oil Merchants?: The Seventh Circuit Upholds the Class Action as a Vehicle for Consumer Protection Stephen Pigozzi Follow this
More informationUNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE SECOND CIRCUIT SUMMARY ORDER
Case 16-1133, Document 132-1, 02/15/2017, 1969130, Page1 of 7 16-1133-cv (L) Leyse v. Lifetime Entm t Servs., LLC UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE SECOND CIRCUIT SUMMARY ORDER RULINGS BY SUMMARY
More informationHow Wal-Mart v. Dukes Affects Securities-Fraud Class Actions
How Wal-Mart v. Dukes Affects Securities-Fraud Class Actions By Robert H. Bell and Thomas G. Haskins Jr. July 18, 2012 District courts and circuit courts continue to grapple with the full import of the
More informationCLASS ACTIONS AFTER COMCAST
CLASS ACTIONS AFTER COMCAST In Comcast, the Supreme Court held that the district court should have considered viability of the plaintiffs damages theory at the class-certification stage Proposed damages
More informationTort Reform Law Alert
Tort Reform Law Alert A Litigation Department Publication This Tort Reform Law Alert is intended to provide general information for clients or interested individuals and should not be relied upon as legal
More informationCase 2:16-cv RLR Document 93 Entered on FLSD Docket 01/19/2018 Page 1 of 13
Case 2:16-cv-14508-RLR Document 93 Entered on FLSD Docket 01/19/2018 Page 1 of 13 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA CASE NO. 2:16-CV-14508-ROSENBERG/MAYNARD JAMES ALDERMAN, on behalf
More informationUNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA. herself and all others similarly situated, ) ) ORDER GRANTING PLAINTIFF S Plaintiff, ) )
Case :-cv-0-l-nls Document Filed 0// Page of 0 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA ASHLEE WHITAKER, on behalf of ) Case No. -cv--l(nls) herself and all others similarly situated,
More informationSupreme Court of the United States
No. 17-395 IN THE Supreme Court of the United States TAYLOR FARMS PACIFIC, INC. D/B/A TAYLOR FARMS, Petitioner, v. MARIA DEL CARMEN PENA, CONSUELO HERNANDEZ, LETICIA SUAREZ, ROSEMARY DAIL, and WENDELL
More informationpìéêéãé=`çìêí=çñ=íüé=råáíéç=pí~íéë=
No. 14-1124 IN THE pìéêéãé=`çìêí=çñ=íüé=råáíéç=pí~íéë= WAL-MART STORES, INC., and SAM S EAST, INC., Petitioners, v. MICHELLE BRAUN, on behalf of herself and all others similarly situated, and DOLORES HUMMEL,
More informationCase 6:14-cv ACC-TBS Document 84 Filed 11/02/15 Page 1 of 15 PageID 522 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT MIDDLE DISTRICT OF FLORIDA ORLANDO DIVISION
Case 6:14-cv-01181-ACC-TBS Document 84 Filed 11/02/15 Page 1 of 15 PageID 522 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT MIDDLE DISTRICT OF FLORIDA ORLANDO DIVISION JANET RIFFLE, Plaintiff, v. Case No: 6:14-cv-1181-Orl-22KRS
More informationUNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
Case:-cv-00-TEH Document Filed0 Page of UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA KIMBERLY YORDY, Plaintiff, v. PLIMUS, INC, Defendant. Case No. -cv-00-teh ORDER DENYING CLASS CERTIFICATION
More informationUSDS SDNY DOCUMENT ELECTRONICALLY FILED DOC#:
Case 1:96-cv-08414-KMW Document 447 Filed 06/18/14 Page 1 of 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK --------------------------------------------------------)( USDS SDNY DOCUMENT ELECTRONICALLY
More informationCase 2:14-cv ER Document 89 Filed 02/22/18 Page 1 of 21 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA
Case 2:14-cv-05005-ER Document 89 Filed 02/22/18 Page 1 of 21 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA AMY SILVIS, on behalf of : CIVIL ACTION herself and all others
More informationIn the United States Court of Federal Claims
Case 1:17-cv-03000-SGB Document 106 Filed 12/08/17 Page 1 of 8 In the United States Court of Federal Claims Filed: December 8, 2017 IN RE ADDICKS AND BARKER (TEXAS) FLOOD-CONTROL RESERVOIRS Master Docket
More informationBristol-Myers Squibb: A Dangerous Sword
Portfolio Media. Inc. 111 West 19 th Street, 5th Floor New York, NY 10011 www.law360.com Phone: +1 646 783 7100 Fax: +1 646 783 7161 customerservice@law360.com Bristol-Myers Squibb: A Dangerous Sword By
More informationUnited States Court of Appeals For the Eighth Circuit
United States Court of Appeals For the Eighth Circuit No. 12-1716 Gale Halvorson; Shelene Halvorson, Husband and Wife lllllllllllllllllllll Plaintiffs - Appellees v. Auto-Owners Insurance Company; Owners
More informationIN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT WESTERN DISTRICT OF MISSOURI WESTERN DIVISION ORDER
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT WESTERN DISTRICT OF MISSOURI WESTERN DIVISION IN RE: SIMPLY ORANGE ORANGE JUICE MARKETING AND SALES PRACTICES LITIGATION This Document Relates To: ALL CASES MDL No.
More informationUNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) Presently before the court is Defendants Motion for Class
O UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 1 1 1 1 1 1 NICOLAS TORRENT, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated, v. Plaintiff, THIERRY OLLIVIER, NATIERRA, and BRANDSTROM,
More informationCase: 1:10-md JZ Doc #: 323 Filed: 01/23/12 1 of 8. PageID #: 5190 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT NORTHERN DISTRICT OF OHIO WESTERN DIVISION
Case: 1:10-md-02196-JZ Doc #: 323 Filed: 01/23/12 1 of 8. PageID #: 5190 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT NORTHERN DISTRICT OF OHIO WESTERN DIVISION In re POLYURETHANE FOAM ANTITRUST LITIGATION MDL Docket
More informationNo. IN THE Supreme Court of the United States. THE PROCTER & GAMBLE COMPANY, Petitioner, v. DINO RIKOS, ET AL., Respondents.
No. IN THE Supreme Court of the United States THE PROCTER & GAMBLE COMPANY, Petitioner, v. DINO RIKOS, ET AL., Respondents. On Petition For A Writ Of Certiorari To The United States Court of Appeals For
More informationCase 5:12-cv JAR-JPO Document 13 Filed 12/19/12 Page 1 of 7 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF KANSAS
Case 5:12-cv-04157-JAR-JPO Document 13 Filed 12/19/12 Page 1 of 7 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF KANSAS BRANDON W. OWENS, Individually And On Behalf Of All Others Similarly Situated,
More informationSupreme Court of the United States
No. 16-1221 IN THE Supreme Court of the United States CONAGRA BRANDS, INC., v. Petitioner, ROBERT BRISEÑO, et al., Respondents. On Petition for a Writ of Certiorari to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the
More informationData Breach Class Actions: Addressing Future Injury Risk
Portfolio Media. Inc. 111 West 19 th Street, 5th Floor New York, NY 10011 www.law360.com Phone: +1 646 783 7100 Fax: +1 646 783 7161 customerservice@law360.com Data Breach Class Actions: Addressing Future
More informationUnited States District Court
Case:-cv-000-RS Document Filed0// Page of 0 0 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA JESSICA LEE, individually and on behalf of a class of similarly situated individuals,
More informationInsurers: New Tools To Remove CAFA Cases To Fed. Court
Portfolio Media. Inc. 860 Broadway, 6th Floor New York, NY 10003 www.law360.com Phone: +1 646 783 7100 Fax: +1 646 783 7161 customerservice@law360.com Insurers: New Tools To Remove CAFA Cases To Fed. Court
More informationIn the United States District Court for the Western District of Texas
Schneider et al v. Wal-Mart Stores Texas, LLC d/b/a Wal-Mart Doc. 9 In the United States District Court for the Western District of Texas GLENN SCHNEIDER AND CYNTHIA SCHNEIDER v. WAL-MART STORES TEXAS,
More informationThe Seventh Circuit Undercuts Prominent Defenses in Data Breach Lawsuits and Class Actions
Class Action Litigation Alert The Seventh Circuit Undercuts Prominent Defenses in Data Breach Lawsuits and Class Actions August 2015 With two recent decisions sure to please the plaintiff s bar, the U.S.
More informationUNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
Case: 17-80213, 11/09/2017, ID: 10649704, DktEntry: 6-2, Page 1 of 15 Appeal No. 17 80213 UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT MARLON H. CRYER, individually and on behalf of a class of
More informationIN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT
Case: 14-30550 Document: 00512841052 Page: 1 Date Filed: 11/18/2014 IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT ROBERT TICKNOR, et al., Plaintiffs-Appellants United States Court of Appeals
More informationTown Of Chester: An Answer On Class-Member Standing?
Portfolio Media. Inc. 111 West 19 th Street, 5th Floor New York, NY 10011 www.law360.com Phone: +1 646 783 7100 Fax: +1 646 783 7161 customerservice@law360.com Town Of Chester: An Answer On Class-Member
More informationIN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT. No Non-Argument Calendar. D.C. Docket No.
Case: 15-12066 Date Filed: 11/16/2015 Page: 1 of 12 [DO NOT PUBLISH] IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT No. 15-12066 Non-Argument Calendar D.C. Docket No. 1:12-cv-01397-SCJ
More informationIN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 0 0 In re: AutoZone, Inc., Wage and Hour Employment Practices Litigation / No.: :0-md-0-CRB Hon. Charles R. Breyer ORDER DENYING
More informationUnited States Court of Appeals
In the United States Court of Appeals For the Seventh Circuit No. 16 2075 JEREMY MEYERS, individually and on behalf of others similarly situated, v. Plaintiff Appellant, NICOLET RESTAURANT OF DE PERE,
More informationThe Changing Landscape in U.S. Antitrust Class Actions
The Changing Landscape in U.S. Antitrust Class Actions By Dean Hansell 1 and William L. Monts III 2 In 1966, prompted by an amendment to the procedural rules applicable to cases in U.S. federal courts,
More informationCase 4:14-cv JAJ-CFB Document 125 Filed 05/12/17 Page 1 of 10
Case 4:14-cv-00463-JAJ-CFB Document 125 Filed 05/12/17 Page 1 of 10 It IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF IOWA CENTRAL DIVISION FREDERICK ROZO, individually and on behalf
More informationUNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
FOR PUBLICATION UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT ROBERT BRISENO, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. CONAGRA FOODS, INC., Defendant-Appellant.
More informationCLASS ACTION JURY TRIALS
CLASS ACTION JURY TRIALS Going the Distance Emily Harris Corr Cronin Michelson Baumgardner & Preece LLP The Class Action Landscape is Changing AT&T Mobility LLC v. Concepcion (2011) Class action arbitration
More informationIN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT. No Non-Argument Calendar. D.C. Docket No. 7:15-cv LSC.
Case: 16-14519 Date Filed: 02/27/2017 Page: 1 of 13 [DO NOT PUBLISH] IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT No. 16-14519 Non-Argument Calendar D.C. Docket No. 7:15-cv-02350-LSC
More informationCase No IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
Case: 16-15120, 07/13/2016, ID: 10049707, DktEntry: 24-1, Page 1 of 5 Case No. 16-15120 (1 of 32) IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT KARL E. RISINGER, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. SOC
More informationSupreme Court of the United States
No. 14-857 IN THE Supreme Court of the United States CAMPBELL-EWALD COMPANY, Petitioner, v. JOSE GOMEZ, Respondent. ON WRIT OF CERTIORARI TO THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT BRIEF
More informationUNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) Presently before the Court is Plaintiff Luis Escalante
O UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 1 LUIS ESCALANTE, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated, v. Plaintiff, CALIFORNIA PHYSICIANS' SERVICE dba BLUE SHIELD OF CALIFORNIA,
More informationCase 0:16-cv WPD Document 165 Entered on FLSD Docket 05/04/2018 Page 1 of 13 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA
Case 0:16-cv-62942-WPD Document 165 Entered on FLSD Docket 05/04/2018 Page 1 of 13 KERRY ROTH, on behalf of herself and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff, vs. GEICO GENERAL INSURANCE COMPANY; GOVERNMENT
More informationCase 0:12-cv RNS Document 38 Entered on FLSD Docket 09/23/2013 Page 1 of 9 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA
Case 0:12-cv-61959-RNS Document 38 Entered on FLSD Docket 09/23/2013 Page 1 of 9 ZENOVIDA LOVE, et al., UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA Case No. 12-61959-Civ-SCOLA vs. Plaintiffs,
More informationCase 1:13-cv WTL-MJD Document 193 Filed 09/26/18 Page 1 of 18 PageID #: 6000
Case 1:13-cv-01501-WTL-MJD Document 193 Filed 09/26/18 Page 1 of 18 PageID #: 6000 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF INDIANA INDIANAPOLIS DIVISION KATHERINE LANTERI, individually, ) and
More informationUNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
1 1 1 TRINETTE G. KENT (State Bar No. ) North Tatum Blvd., Suite 0- Phoenix, AZ 0 Telephone: (0) - Facsimile: (0) -1 E-mail: tkent@lemberglaw.com Of Counsel to Lemberg Law, LLC A Connecticut Law Firm 00
More informationEmployment Discrimination Litigation
Federal Appellate Court Allows Sex Discrimination Class Action Encompassing Up To 1.5 Million Class Members SUMMARY On April 26, 2010, the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit (which encompasses
More informationIn the Supreme Court of the United States
No. 16-841 In the Supreme Court of the United States INTERNATIONAL PAPER COMPANY, ET AL., v. KLEEN PRODUCTS LLC, ET AL., Petitioners Respondents On Petition for a Writ of Certiorari to the United States
More informationCase 3:16-cv JST Document 65 Filed 12/07/18 Page 1 of 11 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
Case :-cv-0-jst Document Filed /0/ Page of UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA RICHARD TERRY, Plaintiff, v. HOOVESTOL, INC., Defendant. Case No. -cv-0-jst ORDER GRANTING PRELIMINARY
More informationREMOVAL TO FEDERAL COURT. Seminar Presentation Rob Foos
REMOVAL TO FEDERAL COURT Seminar Presentation Rob Foos Attorney Strategy o The removal of cases from state to federal courts cannot be found in the Constitution of the United States; it is purely statutory
More informationTHE SUPREME COURT OF NEW HAMPSHIRE PATRICK CANTWELL J & R PROPERTIES UNLIMITED, INC. Argued: April 3, 2007 Opinion Issued: May 30, 2007
NOTICE: This opinion is subject to motions for rehearing under Rule 22 as well as formal revision before publication in the New Hampshire Reports. Readers are requested to notify the Reporter, Supreme
More informationUnited States Court of Appeals
In the United States Court of Appeals For the Seventh Circuit No. 17-2408 HEATHER DIEFFENBACH and SUSAN WINSTEAD, Plaintiffs-Appellants, v. BARNES & NOBLE, INC., Defendant-Appellee. Appeal from the United
More informationUNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT DISTRICT OF MASSACHUSETTS CIVIL ACTION NO RWZ
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT DISTRICT OF MASSACHUSETTS CIVIL ACTION NO. 13-10305-RWZ DAVID ROMULUS, CASSANDRA BEALE, NICHOLAS HARRIS, ASHLEY HILARIO, ROBERT BOURASSA, and ERICA MELLO, on behalf of themselves
More informationJ S - 6 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA. CASE NO. CV JST (FMOx) GLOBAL DÉCOR, INC. and THOMAS H. WOLF.
Case :-cv-00-jls-fmo Document Filed 0// Page of 0 Page ID #: 0 0 GLOBAL DÉCOR, INC. and THOMAS H. WOLF vs. Plaintiffs, THE CINCINNATI INSURANCE COMPANY, Defendant. UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT CENTRAL
More informationSupreme Court of the United States
No. 12-165 IN THE Supreme Court of the United States RBS CITIZENS N.A. D/B/A CHARTER ONE, ET AL., v. Petitioners, SYNTHIA ROSS, ET AL., Respondents. On Petition for Writ of Certiorari to the United States
More informationIN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF GEORGIA ATLANTA DIVISION : : : : ORDER
Case 115-cv-02818-AT Document 18 Filed 03/29/16 Page 1 of 7 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF GEORGIA ATLANTA DIVISION BATASKI BAILEY, Plaintiff, v. WELLS FARGO BANK, N.A.,
More informationpìéêéãé=`çìêí=çñ=íüé=råáíéç=pí~íéë=
No. 15-597 IN THE pìéêéãé=`çìêí=çñ=íüé=råáíéç=pí~íéë= WAL-MART STORES, INC., v. CHERYL PHIPPS, BOBBI MILLNER, AND SHAWN GIBBONS, Petitioner, Respondents. On Petition For A Writ Of Certiorari To The United
More informationNOT FOR PUBLICATION UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
FILED NOT FOR PUBLICATION UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS DEC 02 2009 MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK U.S. COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT CON KOURTIS; et al., Plaintiffs - Appellants, v. JAMES CAMERON; et
More informationTYSON FOODS, INC., PEG BOUAPHAKEO, INDIVIDUALLY AND ON BEHALF OF ALL OTHERS SIMILARLY SITUATED, ET AL.,
No. 14-1146 IN THE TYSON FOODS, INC., v. Petitioner, PEG BOUAPHAKEO, INDIVIDUALLY AND ON BEHALF OF ALL OTHERS SIMILARLY SITUATED, ET AL., Respondents. On Writ Of Certiorari To The United States Court Of
More informationRecent Developments and Strategies to Strengthen Your Class Action Defense
Recent Developments and Strategies to Strengthen Your Class Action Defense by Brian Troyer, Partner, Thompson Hine LLP 20th Annual ACI Drug & Medical Device Litigation Conference December 2015 Class action
More informationUSDC IN/ND case 3:05-md RLM-CAN document 2030 filed 04/21/10 page 1 of 6
USDC IN/ND case 3:05-md-00527-RLM-CAN document 2030 filed 04/21/10 page 1 of 6 THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT NORTHERN DISTRICT OF INDIANA SOUTH BEND DIVISION ) In re FEDEX GROUND PACKAGE ) Cause No.
More informationAmerican Capital Acquisitions v. Fortigent LLC
2014 Decisions Opinions of the United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit 12-11-2014 American Capital Acquisitions v. Fortigent LLC Precedential or Non-Precedential: Non-Precedential Docket No.
More informationNOT FOR PUBLICATION UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
NOT FOR PUBLICATION UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT FILED MAR 9 2017 MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK U.S. COURT OF APPEALS TAYLOR & LIEBERMAN, An Accountancy Corporation, v. Plaintiff-Appellant,
More informationIN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF HAWAII ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) )
Snyder v. CACH, LLC Doc. 39 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF HAWAII MARIA SNYDER, vs. Plaintiff, CACH, LLC; MANDARICH LAW GROUP, LLP; DAVID N. MATSUMIYA; TREVOR OZAWA, Defendants.
More informationNo WILLA D. LOWE, individually and on behalf of a class of similarly situated persons, AMES MEAT, INC.,
No. 17-1000 IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE AMES CIRCUIT WILLA D. LOWE, individually and on behalf of a class of similarly situated persons, v. Plaintiff-Appellant, AMES MEAT, INC., Defendant-Appellee.
More informationIn The Supreme Court of the United States
No. 14-1382 ================================================================ In The Supreme Court of the United States AMERICOLD LOGISTICS, LLC, and AMERICOLD REALTY TRUST, v. CONAGRA FOODS, INC., and
More informationUNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA. Plaintiff, Defendants.
1 1 1 1 0 1 ELIZABETH BARKER and YADIRA ESQUEDA, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, v. U.S. BANCORP UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA Plaintiff, Defendants.
More informationUnited States District Court
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA SAN JOSE DIVISION AMKOR TECHNOLOGY, INC., 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 v. TESSERA, INC., Petitioner(s), Respondent(s). / ORDER GRANTING RESPONDENT
More informationpìéêéãé=`çìêí=çñ=íüé=råáíéç=pí~íéë=
No. IN THE pìéêéãé=`çìêí=çñ=íüé=råáíéç=pí~íéë= WAL-MART STORES, INC., and SAM S EAST, INC., Petitioners, v. MICHELLE BRAUN, on behalf of herself and all others similarly situated, and DOLORES HUMMEL, on
More informationCase: 4:14-cv ERW Doc. #: 221 Filed: 01/18/17 Page: 1 of 13 PageID #: 3025
Case: 4:14-cv-00069-ERW Doc. #: 221 Filed: 01/18/17 Page: 1 of 13 PageID #: 3025 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF MISSOURI EASTERN DIVISION RON GOLAN, et al., ) ) Plaintiff, ) ) v. ) No.
More informationPUBLISH TENTH CIRCUIT. Plaintiffs - Appellants, v. No PENSKE TRUCK LEASING CO., L.P.,
PUBLISH FILED United States Court of Appeals Tenth Circuit June 19, 2018 Elisabeth A. Shumaker UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS Clerk of Court TENTH CIRCUIT PERRY ODOM, and CAROLYN ODOM, Plaintiffs - Appellants,
More informationThe Need to Establish Absent Class Member Standing in Antitrust Class Actions
theantitrustsource w w w. a n t i t r u s t s o u r c e. c o m O c t o b e r 2 0 1 5 1 The Need to Establish Absent Class Member Standing in Antitrust Class Actions Theane Evangelis and Cynthia E. Richman
More informationSupreme Court of the United States
No. 17-432 IN THE Supreme Court of the United States CHINA AGRITECH, INC., v. MICHAEL H. RESH, et al., Petitioner, Respondents. On Petition for a Writ of Certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals
More informationCase 3:13-cv RS Document 134 Filed 04/15/16 Page 1 of 19
Case :-cv-0-rs Document Filed 0// Page of UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 0 VINCENT D. MULLINS, et al., Plaintiffs, v. PREMIER NUTRITION CORPORATION, Defendant. Case No. -cv-0-rs
More informationIN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS EASTERN DIVISION
Foday et al v. Air Check, Inc. et al Doc. 70 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS EASTERN DIVISION ALEX FODAY, et al., ) ) Plaintiffs, ) ) v. ) No. 15 C 10205 ) AIR
More informationMarcus DeShields v. Atty Gen PA
2009 Decisions Opinions of the United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit 7-10-2009 Marcus DeShields v. Atty Gen PA Precedential or Non-Precedential: Non-Precedential Docket No. 08-1995 Follow
More informationUNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA. Case No SCOLA
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA Case No. 11-61357 SCOLA STEPHEN M. MANNO et al., vs. Plaintiffs, HEALTHCARE REVENUE RECOVERY GROUP, LLC, et al., Defendants. / ORDER DENYING MOTION
More informationNOT DESIGNATED FOR PUBLICATION. No. 116,392 IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF THE STATE OF KANSAS. DUSTIN J. MERRYFIELD, Appellant, and
NOT DESIGNATED FOR PUBLICATION No. 116,392 IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF THE STATE OF KANSAS DUSTIN J. MERRYFIELD, Appellant, and RICHARD A. QUILLEN, Petitioner, v. KANSAS DEPARTMENT FOR AGING AND DISABILITY
More informationMissing The Class Action Removal Boat To Federal Court
Portfolio Media. Inc. 860 Broadway, 6th Floor New York, NY 10003 www.law360.com Phone: +1 646 783 7100 Fax: +1 646 783 7161 customerservice@law360.com Missing The Class Action Removal Boat To Federal Court
More informationIN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT
Case: 15-60764 Document: 00513714839 Page: 1 Date Filed: 10/12/2016 IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT EQUAL EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITY COMMISSION, United States Court of Appeals Fifth
More informationUNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT NORTHERN DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS EASTERN DIVISION
Case 1:05-cv-05030 Document 133 Filed 01/31/2008 Page 1 of 10 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT NORTHERN DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS EASTERN DIVISION KIMBERLY WILLIAMS-ELLIS, ) on behalf of herself and all others
More informationUNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) )
Case :-cv-0-tjh-kk Document Filed 0/0/ Page of Page ID #: Matthew Borden, Esq. (SBN: borden@braunhagey.com Amit Rana, Esq. (SBN: rana@braunhagey.com BRAUNHAGEY & BORDEN LLP Sansome Street, Second Floor
More information