Employment Discrimination Litigation
|
|
- Meghan McDaniel
- 5 years ago
- Views:
Transcription
1 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 California and other Western states) issued a decision affirming a federal District Court s decision to certify a huge class of plaintiffs in a sex discrimination class action against Wal-Mart Stores. Dukes v. Wal-Mart Stores Inc., Nos , , 2010 U.S. App. LEXIS 8576, 109 Fair Empl. Prac. Cas. (BNA) 15 (9th Cir. Apr. 26, 2010). The closely divided Court held, by a 6 to 5 majority, that the proposed class was appropriate under the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. The majority decision, together with two spirited dissenting opinions, encompasses over 140 pages. The decision, if it were to stand, would represent a significant departure from the existing law in other Circuits, and from the recent trend in other court decisions of carefully scrutinizing at class certification, the legal and evidentiary support for the claims to be proven at trial. Wal-Mart likely will seek a stay of the decision and review by the Supreme Court. Although the odds of any particular case being reviewed by the Supreme Court are always long, in light of the facts that the majority decision explicitly disagrees with holdings of other Circuit Courts of Appeals, that the decision hinges on interpretations of prior Supreme Court class action decisions that, as the dissent points out, are controversial, and that the size and scope of the certified class is arguably unprecedented, there would seem to be a material chance that the Supreme Court will accept it for review. BACKGROUND The plaintiffs in the Dukes action allege that Wal-Mart Inc. discriminates against women in violation of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of After briefing and hearing, the District Court certified a class encompassing all women employed by Wal-Mart in some 3,400 stores nationwide at any time after December 26, The number of individuals encompassed within that class is estimated to be on the New York Washington, D.C. Los Angeles Palo Alto London Paris Frankfurt Tokyo Hong Kong Beijing Melbourne Sydney
2 order of 1.5 million. Plaintiffs allege that women employed in Wal-Mart stores are (1) paid less than men in comparable positions, and (2) discriminated against in promotions. Plaintiffs allege that Wal-Mart s centralized structure fosters or facilitates gender stereotyping and discrimination, that the policies and practices underlying the alleged discriminatory treatment are consistent throughout all Wal-Mart stores and that the alleged discrimination is common to all women who work or have worked in Wal-Mart stores. The class representatives sought to certify a class under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23(b)(2), which allows class actions to proceed without affording absent class members notice or an opt-out right, and is designed for cases in which plaintiffs claim that the defendant has acted or refused to act on grounds that apply generally to the class, so that injunctive or declaratory relief is appropriate with respect to the class as a whole. Classes under Rule 23(b)(2) are held to be appropriate only when the request for injunctive relief predominates over any claim for monetary relief. Plaintiffs seeking class certification must meet two sets of criteria under Rule 23. First, they must establish the four Rule 23(a) requirements of numerosity, commonality of questions of law or fact, typicality of the claims of the class representatives to those of the class, and adequacy of the representation. Second, they must establish that the proposed class would fall within one of the three types of class action defined in Rule 23(b). The plaintiffs, as noted, primarily sought certification under Rule 23(b)(2) on their equitable claims for injunctive relief and for back pay. Plaintiffs also sought certification under Rule 23(b)(3), the provision typically at issue in class actions seeking money damages (such as federal securities fraud class actions), on their claim for punitive damages. The majority decision noted that the requirements of Rule 23(b)(3) that common issues predominate and that class treatment is superior to other methods for resolving the controversy might not be met with respect to the claims for punitive damages, but it left that issue for the District Court to decide on remand. The majority and the principal dissenting opinions contain lengthy analyses of the law. 1 It is beyond the scope of this memorandum to summarize every portion of those decisions. Instead, we describe particularly interesting aspects of them. The majority purports to accept the ruling of the Second Circuit in In Re Initial Public Offering Securities Litigation, 471 F.3d 24 (2d Cir. 2006) (the IPO Litigation ) that, when considering class certification under Rule 23, district courts must perform a rigorous analysis, including by looking behind the pleadings and examining the parties proof. 2 Nevertheless, despite having accepted the IPO decision s rationale, the majority undertook a very limited review of the evidence offered by the parties, and the majority side-stepped entirely the preponderance of the evidence standard adopted in IPO and several other Circuits when determining whether the requirements of Rule 23 are met. The Court distinguished Title VII cases from securities cases, and held that experts disagreements on the merits do not provide a valid reason for denying class certification. The Court held that all that 1 The principal dissenting opinion was written by Judge Ikuta. Chief Judge Kozinksi submitted a oneparagraph dissent, joining in Judge Ikuta s dissent. 2 Sullivan & Cromwell LLP served as litigation counsel for the underwriter defendants in the IPO Litigation. Our memorandum of December 7, 2006 describes the decision in detail. -2-
3 a plaintiff must do to satisfy the commonality requirement of Rule 23(a)(2) is to establish common questions of law and fact. The majority held that answering those questions is not to be done at the certification stage, but rather is the purpose of the merits inquiry of trial and summary judgment. The dissent vigorously objected to this rationale, arguing that under the Supreme Court s decision in General Tel. Co. of Sw. v. Falcon, 457 U.S. 147 (1982), significant proof of commonality is necessary. The majority declined to decide whether the expert evidence offered by plaintiffs and upon which the conclusion that common questions of fact existed met the federal standards for admissibility at trial. Thus, the majority refused to consider the credibility of expert testimony concerning supposed gender stereotypes and subconscious bias, which plaintiffs offered in an attempt to establish that Wal-Mart s policy of allowing individual store managers at 3,400 stores to make employment decisions could constitute a general corporate policy of discrimination. The majority accepted as a common question of fact the question whether Wal-Mart s policy of decentralized, subjective employment decision making could operate to discriminate against female employees. The majority held that plaintiffs statistical evidence was acceptable for purposes of class certification, notwithstanding defendant s objection that the statistics were incapable of proving the legal theory advanced by the class because they were aggregated on a regional level, while decisions were made at a store level. The majority held that anecdotal declarations submitted by plaintiffs raised an inference of common discriminatory experiences. The dissent, by contrast, noted that the 120 declarations offered by plaintiffs represented a minuscule portion of the 1.5 million potential class members, both in terms of the number of individuals and the breadth of their experiences. The dissent further argued that individual stories cannot constitute significant proof of a general policy of discrimination. The majority found that plaintiffs claims were sufficiently typical of the claims of the rest of the class, notwithstanding that the class would include managers who made employment decisions affecting the other class members. The majority rejected Wal-Mart s argument that certification of a class including managers would establish a conflict of interest because the managers are both class members and potentially liable agents of Wal-Mart with respect to the alleged mistreatment of other class members. The majority, without further analysis, held that the District Court s rejection of that argument was not an abuse of discretion. In one aspect of the decision that creates a significant conflict with other Circuits, the majority ruled that under Rule 23(b)(2) the assessment of whether the appropriate final relief relates exclusively or predominantly to monetary damages does not depend on the subjective intent of the plaintiffs, as the Second Circuit has held, nor does it depend on an analysis of whether monetary damages are incidental as held by the Fifth, Six, Seventh and Eleventh Circuits. Rather, the majority cited the Merriam-Webster s Collegiate Dictionary definition of predominant and held that, for Rule 23(b)(2) certification, a class must seek only monetary damages that are not superior [in] strength, influence or authority to injunctive and to declaratory relief. The majority held that the large size of the class did not undermine plaintiffs claim that injunctive and declaratory relief predominate, and also held that back pay requests, notwithstanding their enormous potential amount, represented an equitable rather than monetary award, and that back pay could be calculated on a class-wide basis. The majority held that 23(b)(2) class certification may not be proper as to class members who were not employees as of the date of the filing of the complaint, as they would not have standing to pursue injunctive or declaratory relief. Finally, the majority held that a class of the size that the District Court certified was manageable, noting possible ways of trying the case, including a method that might include sampling and statistical review. The majority rejected without any substantial analysis Wal-Mart s argument that under Section 706(g)(2) of Title VII, it has a right to prove on an individual basis that even if there were a discriminatory policy, a particular plaintiff would be disentitled to recovery because the plaintiff engaged in conduct that would have resulted in the defendant taking the same action in the absence of discrimination. Wal-Mart cited the Rules Enabling Act for the proposition that the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure may not modify any substantive right. 28 U.S.C. 2072(b). -3-
4 As noted above, the dissent vigorously disagreed with substantial aspects of the majority decision. The dissent argued that the District Court s class certification decision was an abuse of discretion, both because plaintiffs had not adequately established the prerequisites of Rule 23(a) and because the District Court had ignored Wal-Mart s statutory right to raise defenses to liability, including under Section 706(g) of Title VII. The dissent cited the U.S. Supreme Court s decision in Falcon as establishing that a plaintiff must produce significant proof that an employer operated under a general policy of discrimination when challenging an alleged subjective decision-making process. The dissent took issue with the majority s acceptance of 120 declarations as an adequate basis for certification, and was critical of plaintiffs statistical proof, including the aggregation by plaintiffs statistical experts of the data by region instead of by individual store. The dissent argued that when plaintiffs evidence is subjected to the rigorous inquiry required by Falcon, it is inadequate to bridge the gap between the six plaintiffs claims of individual discrimination and a classwide claim of company-wide discrimination....[l]ike the proverbial shell game, the plaintiffs circular presentation cannot conceal the fact that they have failed to offer any significant proof of a company-wide policy of discrimination, no matter which shell is lifted. The dissent reviewed the law establishing that in a pattern and practice discrimination case, the defendant has the right to raise individualized defenses to claims for monetary relief, citing Int l. Bhd. of Teamsters v. United States, 431 U.S. 324 (1977). The dissent observed that the majority never satisfactorily answered the question of how a District Court could conduct up to 1.5 million individualized hearings during the second phase of the case that Teamsters mandates. Finally, the dissent argued that the majority s analysis of Rule 23(b)(2) ignored the Supreme Court s observation in Ortiz v. Fibreboard, 527 U.S. 815 (1999), that courts must stay close to the historical model in analyzing 23(b)(2) class certification. The dissent argued that the history and structure of Rule 23(b) compels the conclusion that the proposed class does not fit within the category of cases seeking primarily equitable relief within the reach of Rule 23(b)(2). The dissent observed that the majority has created a three-way circuit split, contrary to its own precedent that such splits should be avoided (Zimmerman v. Oregon Department of Justice, 170 F.3d 1169 (9th Cir. 1999)) and aggravating the already existing inconsistency among the circuits. The dissent observed that there is no evidence that the Advisory Committee that established the Federal Rules thought Rule 23(b)(2) was appropriate for classes seeking back pay. IMPLICATIONS The dissent concisely summed up the implications of this decision, if it were to stand: Never before has such a low bar been set for certifying such a gargantuan class. The majority s ruling provides scant limits -4-
5 to the types of classes that can be certified. Put simply, the door is now open to Title VII lawsuits targeting national and international companies, regardless of size and diversity, based on nothing more than general and conclusory allegations, a handful of anecdotes, and statistical disparities that bear little relation to the alleged discriminatory decisions. Given the highly contested nature of this 6-to-5 decision, the extraordinary size of the class and the acknowledged conflict between the decision and holdings in other circuits, it seems quite likely that Wal- Mart will seek a stay of the decision and will petition to the U.S. Supreme Court for review of the decision. * * * Copyright Sullivan & Cromwell LLP
6 ABOUT SULLIVAN & CROMWELL LLP Sullivan & Cromwell LLP is a global law firm that advises on major domestic and cross-border M&A, finance and corporate transactions, significant litigation and corporate investigations, and complex regulatory, tax and estate planning matters. Founded in 1879, Sullivan & Cromwell LLP has more than 700 lawyers on four continents, with four offices in the U.S., including its headquarters in New York, three offices in Europe, two in Australia and three in Asia. CONTACTING SULLIVAN & CROMWELL LLP This publication is provided by Sullivan & Cromwell LLP as a service to clients and colleagues. The information contained in this publication should not be construed as legal advice. Questions regarding the matters discussed in this publication may be directed to any of our lawyers listed below, or to any other Sullivan & Cromwell LLP lawyer with whom you have consulted in the past on similar matters. If you have not received this publication directly from us, you may obtain a copy of any past or future related publications from Jennifer Rish ( ; rishj@sullcrom.com) or Alison Alifano ( ; alifanoa@sullcrom.com) in our New York office. CONTACTS New York Theodore O. Rogers, Jr rogersto@sullcrom.com Robin D. Fessel fesselr@sullcrom.com John F. Fullerton III fullertonj@sullcrom.com NY12529:
Wal-Mart Stores, Inc. v. Dukes
Wal-Mart Stores, Inc. v. Dukes June 22, 2011 In Wal-Mart Stores, Inc. v. Dukes, No. 10-277 (June 20, 2011), the Supreme Court vacated the certification of the largest class action in history and issued
More informationFederal Circuit Tightens Standards for Inequitable Conduct
Federal Circuit Tightens Standards for Inequitable Conduct SUMMARY On May 25, 2011, the United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit issued its long-awaited en banc opinion in Therasense, Inc.
More informationCriminal Defense and Investigations
The Manhattan District Attorney Issues Written Guidelines Prosecutors Must Consult Before Charging Business Entities and Other Organizations SUMMARY On May 27, 2010, the New York County District Attorney
More informationArbitration Agreements and Class Actions
Supreme Court Enforces Arbitration Agreement with Class Action Waiver, Narrowing the Scope of Ability to Avoid Such Agreements SUMMARY The United States Supreme Court yesterday continued its rigorous enforcement
More informationConstitutionality of the Public Company Accounting Oversight Board
Constitutionality of the Public Company Accounting Oversight Board U.S. Supreme Court Concludes That Only the Tenure Provisions of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act Governing the Removal of PCAOB Members Are Unconstitutional
More informationFederal Circuit Provides Guidance on Claim Selection Procedures and Federal Jurisdiction Over Patent License Disputes
Federal Circuit Provides Guidance on Claim Selection Procedures and Federal Jurisdiction Over Patent License Disputes SUMMARY Last week, the United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit issued
More informationKokesh v. SEC: U.S. Supreme Court Holds That a Five-Year Statute of Limitations Applies When the SEC Seeks Disgorgement in Enforcement Actions
Kokesh v. SEC: U.S. Supreme Court Holds That a Five-Year Statute of Limitations Applies When the SEC Seeks Disgorgement in Enforcement Actions The Decision Builds Upon the Court s 2013 Holding That the
More informationSupreme Court Addresses Fee Shifting in Patent Infringement Cases
Supreme Court Addresses Fee Shifting in Patent Infringement Cases In Pair of Rulings, the Supreme Court Relaxes the Federal Circuit Standard for When District Courts May Award Fees in Patent Infringement
More informationSupreme Court Upholds Award of Foreign Lost Profits for U.S. Patent Infringement
Supreme Court Upholds Award of Foreign Lost Profits for U.S. Patent Infringement Courts May Award Foreign Lost Profits Where Infringement Is Based on the Export of Components of Patented Invention Under
More information2010 Winston & Strawn LLP
Class Action Litigation: The Facts Really Do Matter Brought to you by Winston & Strawn LLP s Litigation Practice Group Today s elunch Presenters Stephen Smerek Litigation Los Angeles SSmerek@winston.com
More informationCongress Passes Historic Patent Reform Legislation
Congress Passes Historic Patent Reform Legislation America Invents Act Transitions U.S. Patent System from a First-to-Invent to First-Inventor-to-File System, Overhauls Post-Issue Review Proceedings and
More informationSupreme Court Decision on Scope of Patent Protection
Supreme Court Decision on Scope of Patent Protection Supreme Court Holds Pharmaceutical Treatment Method Without Inventive Insight Unpatentable as a Law of Nature SUMMARY In a decision that is likely to
More informationThe CPI Antitrust Journal August 2010 (1)
The CPI Antitrust Journal August 2010 (1) Dukes v Wal-Mart Stores: En Banc Ninth Circuit Lowers the Bar for Class Certification and Creates Circuit Splits in Approving Largest Class Action Ever Certified
More informationDecision Has Important Implications for Securities Class Actions Filed in State Court Asserting Solely Federal Claims
Cyan Inc. v. Beaver County Employees Retirement Fund: U.S. Supreme Court Holds That State Courts Have Jurisdiction Over Class Actions Brought Under the Securities Act of 1933 Decision Has Important Implications
More informationPatent Litigation and Licensing
Federal Circuit Rules on the Duty to Preserve Evidence SUMMARY On May 13, 2011, the Federal Circuit issued two opinions addressing the duty to preserve evidence in anticipation of commencing patent litigation.
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 informationDelaware Supreme Court Confirms Applicability of Issue Preclusion to Dismissals of Shareholder Derivative Actions for Failure to Plead Demand Futility
Delaware Supreme Court Confirms Applicability of Issue Preclusion to Dismissals of Shareholder Derivative Actions for Failure to Plead Demand Futility Court Rejects Chancery Court s Proposed Rule That
More informationWal-Mart v. Dukes What s Next for Employment Class/Collective Actions
Wal-Mart v. Dukes What s Next for Employment Class/Collective Actions Grace Speights Michael Burkhardt Paul Evans www.morganlewis.com Wal-Mart Stores, Inc. v. Dukes, --- S. Ct. ---, 2011 WL 2437013 (June
More informationSecurities Class Actions
U.S. Supreme Court Holds That Materiality Need Not Be Proven at Class Certification Stage To Trigger the Fraud-on-the-Market Presumption of Reliance in Securities Fraud Actions SUMMARY In Amgen Inc. v.
More informationLucia v. SEC: U.S. Supreme Court Holds That SEC Administrative Law Judges Are Officers of the United States
Lucia v. SEC: U.S. Supreme Court Holds That SEC Administrative Law Judges Are Officers of the Court Rules That SEC s ALJs Were Improperly Appointed and Orders Reconsideration of Matters Before Them SUMMARY
More informationMichigan v. Environmental Protection Agency: Cost Considerations in Agency Regulations
Michigan v. Environmental Protection Agency: Cost Considerations in Agency Regulations Supreme Court Holds that EPA Is Required to Consider Costs When Determining Whether Regulating Certain Power Plants
More informationSCA Hygiene Prods. v. First Quality Baby Prods.
The Supreme Court Eliminates Laches as Defense to Patent Infringement SUMMARY In a 7-1 decision issued yesterday in SCA Hygiene Products Aktiebolag v. First Quality Baby Products, 1 the United States Supreme
More informationNew Justice Department Guidance on Individual Accountability
New Justice Department Guidance on Individual Accountability Analysis of the Justice Department s New Guidance on Individual Liability in Matters of Corporate Wrongdoing SUMMARY On September 9, 2015, the
More informationCalPERS v. ANZ Securities: U.S. Supreme Court Holds That Securities Act s Three-Year Statute of Repose Is Not Tolled by a Pending Class Action
U.S. Supreme Court Holds That Securities Act s Three-Year Statute of Repose Is Not Tolled by a Decision Has Important Implications for Class Action Lawsuits and Potential Opt-Out Claimants SUMMARY In 1974,
More informationExpert Analysis When do money damages predominate in a class action for injunctive relief: Keeping Dukes in perspective
Westlaw Journal Formerly Andrews Litigation Reporter EMPLOYMENT Litigation News and Analysis Legislation Regulation Expert Commentary VOLUME 25, ISSUE 5 / OCTOBER 5, 2010 Expert Analysis When do money
More informationU.S. Supreme Court Forecloses Non-U.S. Corporate Liability Under the Alien Torts Statute
U.S. Supreme Court Forecloses Non-U.S. Corporate Liability Under the Alien Torts Statute Non-U.S. Corporations May Not Be Sued by Non-U.S. Plaintiffs Under the Alien Torts Statute for Alleged Violations
More informationSUMMARY. June 14, 2018
Schneiderman v. Credit Suisse Securities (USA) LLC: New York Court of Appeals Holds That Martin Act Claims Are Governed by Three-Year Statute of Limitations Decision Overrules 26-Year-Old Appellate Division
More informationSecond Circuit Raises Bar for Proof of Fraud Under Federal Statutes
Second Circuit Raises Bar for Proof of Fraud Under Federal Statutes Requires Proof of Contemporaneous False Representation and Fraudulent Intent; Overturns $1.27 Billion Civil FIRREA Penalty SUMMARY On
More informationU.S. Supreme Court Rejects Expansive Interpretation of CERCLA Extender Provision
U.S. Supreme Court Rejects Expansive Interpretation of CERCLA Extender Provision Supreme Court Holds that CERCLA s Extender Provision Applies Only to State Statutes of Limitations and Not State Statutes
More informationSUMMARY. August 27, 2018
United States v. Hoskins Second Circuit Rejects DOJ s Attempt to Expand the Extraterritorial Reach of the FCPA Through Conspiracy and Complicity Doctrines U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit Holds
More informationUnited States Army Corps of Engineers v. Hawkes Co.
United States Army Corps of Engineers v. Hawkes Co. U.S. Supreme Court Holds That Determinations of Clean Water Act Jurisdiction by Army Corps of Engineers Are Judicially Reviewable SUMMARY The Supreme
More informationWhitman v. United States: U.S. Supreme Court Considers Deference to Agencies Interpretations of Criminal Statutes
Whitman v. United States: U.S. Supreme Court Considers Deference to Agencies Interpretations of Two Justices Suggest That Agencies Interpretations Should Not Be Entitled To Deference When Considering Statutes
More informationSecurities Litigation
U.S. Supreme Court Grants Certiorari to Decide Issue That Might Have Significant Impact on Registrants Exposure for Non-Disclosure of Known Trends or Uncertainties in SEC Filings SUMMARY Earlier today,
More informationOil States, SAS Institute, and New Approaches at the U.S. Patent Office
Oil States, SAS Institute, and New Approaches at the U.S. Patent Office Supreme Court Holds that Challenges to Patent Validity Need Not Proceed Before an Article III Court and Sends More Claims Into Review,
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 informationDecision Reinforces the Effect of the Court s Recent Decision in CalPERS v. ANZ Securities, Inc.
U.S. Supreme Court Holds That a Pending Class Action Does Not Toll the Statute of Limitations for Decision Reinforces the Effect of the Court s Recent Decision in CalPERS v. ANZ Securities, Inc. SUMMARY
More informationA NEW BATTLEGROUND IN CLASS ACTIONS: THE COMMONALITY REQUIREMENT OF RULE 23(a)(2)*
A NEW BATTLEGROUND IN CLASS ACTIONS: THE COMMONALITY REQUIREMENT OF RULE 23(a)(2)* BY JEFFREY E. CRANE The U.S. Supreme Court decision in Wal-Mart Stores, Inc. v. Dukes 1 has thrust the commonality requirement
More informationClass War And The Women Of Wal-Mart
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 Class War And The Women Of Wal-Mart Law360, New York
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 informationUNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT WESTERN DISTRICT OF NORTH CAROLINA CHARLOTTE DIVISION DOCKET NO. 3:08-cv MOC-DSC
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT WESTERN DISTRICT OF NORTH CAROLINA CHARLOTTE DIVISION DOCKET NO. 3:08-cv-00540-MOC-DSC LUANNA SCOTT, et al., ) ) Plaintiffs, ) ) Vs. ) ORDER ) FAMILY DOLLAR STORES, INC., )
More informationCOMMENTARY NEW CLASS ACTION RULES IN MEXICO CREATE SIGNIFICANT RISKS FOR COMPANIES DOING BUSINESS IN MEXICO COLLECTIVE ACTIONS UNDER THE NEW LAWS
MARCH 2012 JONES DAY COMMENTARY NEW CLASS ACTION RULES IN MEXICO CREATE SIGNIFICANT RISKS FOR COMPANIES DOING BUSINESS IN MEXICO Beginning March 1, 2012, companies doing business in Mexico will face the
More informationLorenzo v. SEC Supreme Court Issues Decision on Scheme Liability Under Rule 10b-5
Lorenzo v. SEC Supreme Court Issues Decision on Scheme Liability Under Rule 10b-5 U.S. Supreme Court Rules That Defendants Can Be Held Primarily Liable for Securities Scheme Fraud for Knowingly Disseminating
More informationCLASS ACTIONS AFTER WAL-MART
A DV I S O RY June 2011 CLASS ACTIONS AFTER WAL-MART Contacts The Supreme Court s Wal-Mart decision has received an enormous amount of media attention. This Advisory accordingly does not belabor the basic
More informationFebruary 6, Practice Groups: Class Action Litigation Defense; Financial Institutions and Services Litigation
February 6, 2013 Practice Groups: Class Action Litigation Defense; Financial Institutions and Services Litigation Knowing Where You Are Litigating is Half the Battle: The Supreme Court Hears Oral Argument
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 informationWal-Mart Stores, Inc. v. Dukes Docket No Argument Date: March 29, 2011 From: The Ninth Circuit
Civil Procedure Attention Female Workers: Will Wal-Mart Roll Back the Largest Employment Discrimination Class Action Ever? CASE AT A GLANCE In the largest and most closely watched employment discrimination
More informationSecond Circuit Overturns Marblegate, Rejecting Expansive Interpretation of Section 316(b) of the Trust Indenture Act
Second Circuit Overturns Marblegate, Rejecting Expansive Interpretation of Section 316(b) of the Trust In Split Decision, Appeals Court Rules That Section 316(b) of the Trust of 1939 Prohibits Only Formal
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 informationE-DISCOVERY UPDATE. October Edition of Notable Cases and Events in E-Discovery
OCTOBER 1, 2012 E-DISCOVERY UPDATE October Edition of Notable Cases and Events in E-Discovery This update addresses the following recent developments and court decisions involving e-discovery issues: 1.
More informationLatham & Watkins Litigation Department
Number 866 May 14, 2009 Client Alert Latham & Watkins Litigation Department The Third Circuit Clarifies the Class Action Fairness Act s Local Controversy Exception to Federal Jurisdiction In addressing
More informationNew York s Highest Court Sets Forth New Standard for Challenges to Cost-Sharing Provisions in Arbitration Agreements
New York s Highest Court Sets Forth New Standard for Challenges to Cost-Sharing Provisions in Arbitration Agreements April 26, 2010 New York s highest court recently decided a case of first impression
More informationUnited States Supreme Court Grants Certiorari in United States v. Microsoft Corporation
United States Supreme Court Grants Certiorari in United States v. Microsoft Corporation Court Will Review Whether a Warrant Issued Under the U.S. Stored Communications Act Compels a U.S.-Based Entity to
More informationClass Actions in the U.S. an update on a disheartening trend. Albert A. Foer, President, American Antitrust Institute
Class Actions in the U.S. an update on a disheartening trend Albert A. Foer, President, American Antitrust Institute British Institute of International and Comparative Law Collective Redress in Europe
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 informationSupreme Court of the United States
No. 13-136 IN THE Supreme Court of the United States MEGAN MAREK, v. Petitioner, SEAN LANE, INDIVIDUALLY AND ON BEHALF OF ALL OTHERS SIMILARLY SITUATED, ET AL., Respondents. On Petition for a Writ of Certiorari
More informationClass Actions In the U.S.
Class Actions In the U.S. European Capital Markets Law Conference Bucerius Law School Howard Rosenblatt 6 March 2009 Latham & Watkins operates as a limited liability partnership worldwide with affiliated
More informationDoes a Civil Protective Order Protect a Company s Foreign Based Documents from Being Produced in a Related Criminal Investigation?
Does a Civil Protective Order Protect a Company s Foreign Based Documents from Being Produced in a Related Criminal Investigation? Contributed by Thomas P. O Brien and Daniel Prince, Paul Hastings LLP
More information1 IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES. 4 Petitioner : No v. : 9 Tuesday, March 29, The above-entitled matter came on for oral
1 IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES 2 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - x 3 WAL-MART STORES, INC., : 4 Petitioner : No. -277 v. : 6 BETTY DUKES, ET AL., : 7 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - x
More informationVICKI BUTLER, et al., Plaintiffs, v. HOME DEPOT, INC., Defendant. No. C SI
VICKI BUTLER, et al., Plaintiffs, v. HOME DEPOT, INC., Defendant. No. C-94-4335 SI UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 1996 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 3370; 70 Fair Empl. Prac. Cas.
More informationCONGRESS MAKES SIGNIFICANT CHANGES TO RULES GOVERNING CLASS ACTIONS
CLIENT MEMORANDUM CONGRESS MAKES SIGNIFICANT CHANGES TO RULES GOVERNING CLASS ACTIONS Effective February 18, 2005, the Class Action Fairness Act of 2005 ( CAFA ) makes significant changes to the rules
More informationIN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT NORTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS DALLAS DIVISION. v. Civil Action No. 3:06-CV-010-N ORDER
Case 3:06-cv-00010 Document 23 Filed 06/15/2007 Page 1 of 7 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT NORTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS DALLAS DIVISION OWNER OPERATOR INDEPENDENT DRIVERS ASSOCIATION, INC., et al.,
More informationNo IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
No. 07-15838 IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT SHIRLEY RAE ELLIS, LEAH HORSTMAN, AND ELAINE SASAKI, ON BEHALF OF THEMSELVES AND ALL OTHERS SIMILARLY SITUATED, v. Plaintiffs-Appellees,
More informationIn the Wake of Wal-Mart Stores v. Dukes, Where Are the Districts Headed on Class Certification?
In the Wake of Wal-Mart Stores v. Dukes, Where Are the Districts Headed on Class Certification? by Paul M. Smith Last Term s Wal-Mart decision of the Supreme Court had two basic holdings about why the
More informationU.S. Supreme Court Update
Hot Topics in the High Court: U.S. Supreme Court Update Presented by: Susan L. Bickley, Blank Rome LLP Cheryl S. Chang, Blank Rome LLP William R. Cruse, Blank Rome LLP Ann B. Laupheimer, Blank Rome LLP
More informationInvitation To Clarify How Plaintiffs Prove Class Membership --By David Kouba, Arnold & Porter LLP
Published by Appellate Law 360, Class Action Law360, Consumer Protection Law360, Life Sciences Law360, and Product Liability Law360 on November 12, 2015. Invitation To Clarify How Plaintiffs Prove Class
More informationSUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES
Cite as: 564 U. S. (2011) 1 NOTICE: This opinion is subject to formal revision before publication in the preliminary print of the United States Reports. Readers are requested to notify the Reporter of
More informationIn re Cornerstone Therapeutics Inc. Stockholder Litigation
In re Cornerstone Therapeutics Inc. Stockholder Litigation Delaware Supreme Court Holds That Plaintiffs Seeking Monetary Damages Must Plead Non-Exculpated Claims Against Disinterested Directors to Survive
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 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 informationThe Supreme Court Adopts the Gartenberg Standard to Determine Whether an Investment Adviser Breached its Fiduciary Duty in Approving Fees
To read the decision in Jones v. Harris Associates L.P., please click here. The Supreme Court Adopts the Gartenberg Standard to Determine Whether an Investment Adviser Breached its Fiduciary Duty in Approving
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 informationTABLE OF CONTENTS Page QUESTION PRESENTED... 1 TABLE OF CONTENTS TABLE OF AUTHORITIES INTRODUCTION... 1 STATEMENT OF THE CASE... 2 A.
1 QUESTION PRESENTED Did the Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit err in concluding that the State of West Virginia's enforcement action was brought under a West Virginia statute regulating the sale
More informationWAL-MART STORES, INC., PETITIONER v. BETTY DUKES ET AL. SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES. June 20, 2011, Decided
WAL-MART STORES, INC., PETITIONER v. BETTY DUKES ET AL. SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES June 20, 2011, Decided JUDGES: SCALIA, J., delivered the opinion of the Court, in which ROBERTS, C. J., and KENNEDY,
More informationSupreme Court of the United States
No. 10-277 IN THE Supreme Court of the United States WAL-MART STORES, INC., Petitioner, v. BETTY DUKES, PATRICIA SURGESON, EDITH ARANA, KAREN WILLIAMSON, DEBORAH GUNTER, CHRISTINE KWAPNOSKI, and CLEO PAGE,
More informationFederal Subject Matter Jurisdiction Outline
Practice Series Federal Subject Matter Jurisdiction Outline Matt D. Basil Stephen R. Brown Ashley M. Schumacher Devin R. Sullivan 2011 Jenner & Block LLP All Rights Reserved Offices 353 N. Clark Street
More informationIndividual Disparate Treatment
Individual Disparate Treatment Hishon v. King & Spalding (U.S. 1984) Title VII prohibits discrimination in compensation, terms, conditions, or privileges of employment A benefit that is part and parcel
More informationJune s Notable Cases and Events in E-Discovery
JUNE 22, 2016 SIDLEY UPDATE June s Notable Cases and Events in E-Discovery This Sidley Update addresses the following recent developments and court decisions involving e-discovery issues: 1. A Southern
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 informationCase Background. Ninth Circuit Ruling
May 16, 2018 CLIENT ALERT In a Break from Other Circuits, the Ninth Circuit Holds that Section 14(e) of the Exchange Act Requires Only a Showing of Negligence, Setting the Stage for Potential Supreme Court
More informationJudicial Estoppel: Key Defense In Discrimination Suits
Portfolio Media, Inc. 648 Broadway, Suite 200 New York, NY 10012 www.law360.com Phone: +1 212 537 6331 Fax: +1 212 537 6371 customerservice@portfoliomedia.com Judicial Estoppel: Key Defense In Discrimination
More informationCase 4:17-cv HSG Document 85 Filed 08/22/18 Page 1 of 12 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
Case :-cv-00-hsg Document Filed 0// Page of UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA VANA FOWLER, Plaintiff, v. WELLS FARGO BANK, N.A., Defendant. Case No. -cv-00-hsg ORDER GRANTING
More informationCase: Document: 31 Page: 1 06/01/ IN THE FOR THE SECOND CIRCUIT
Case: 12-1853 Document: 31 Page: 1 06/01/2012 625711 15 12-1853 IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE SECOND CIRCUIT ADRIANA AGUILAR, et al., on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated,
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 informationIN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE MIDDLE DISTRICT OF TENNESSEE NASHVILLE DIVISION ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) MEMORANDUM
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE MIDDLE DISTRICT OF TENNESSEE NASHVILLE DIVISION DOUGLAS DODSON, et al., Plaintiffs, v. CORECIVIC, et al., Defendants. NO. 3:17-cv-00048 JUDGE CAMPBELL MAGISTRATE
More informationBasic Upheld in Halliburton: Defendants May Rebut Price Impact
JUNE 23, 2014 SECURITIES LITIGATION UPDATE Basic Upheld in Halliburton: Defendants May Rebut Price Impact The U.S. Supreme Court this morning, in Halliburton Co. v. Erica P. John Fund, Inc., No. 13-317
More informationKCC Class Action Digest August 2016
KCC Class Action Digest August 2016 Class Action Services KCC Class Action Services partners with counsel to deliver high-quality, cost-effective notice and settlement administration services. Recognized
More informationUnited States Court of Appeals
In the United States Court of Appeals For the Seventh Circuit No. 09-8025 PELLA CORPORATION AND PELLA WINDOWS AND DOORS, INC., v. Petitioners, LEONARD E. SALTZMAN, KENT EUBANK, THOMAS RIVA, AND WILLIAM
More informationClient Alert. Background on Discovery Requests under Section 1782
Number 1383 August 13, 2012 Client Alert Latham & Watkins Litigation Department Eleventh Circuit Holds That Parties to Private International Commercial Arbitral Tribunals May Seek Discovery Assistance
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 informationSupreme Court Changes the Rules for Age Discrimination Cases, Holding Plaintiffs to a Heightened Proof Standard
Supreme Court Changes the Rules for Age Discrimination Cases, Holding Plaintiffs to a Heightened Proof Standard July 1, 2009 The United States Supreme Court, in a 5-4 decision issued on June 18, 2009 in
More informationFraudMail Alert. Please click here to view our archives
FraudMail Alert Please click here to view our archives CIVIL FALSE CLAIMS ACT: Fifth Circuit Holds Prerequisite to Payment is a Fundamental Requirement in Establishing Falsity in a False Certification
More informationJune 15, MEMORANDUM FOR: All FHEO HUB Directors and Enforcement Centers All Field Assistant General Counsels
U.S. DEPARTMENT OF HOUSING AND URBAN DEVELOPMENT WASHINGTON, D.C. 20410-2000 June 15, 1999 MEMORANDUM FOR: All FHEO HUB Directors and Enforcement Centers All Field Assistant General Counsels FROM: Gail
More informationBANK & LENDER LIABILITY
Westlaw Journal BANK & LENDER LIABILITY Litigation News and Analysis Legislation Regulation Expert Commentary VOLUME 17, ISSUE 8 / AUGUST 29, 2011 Expert Analysis Heightened Standards: What Wal-Mart v.
More information131 S.Ct Reversed. Briefs and Other Related Documents
131 S.Ct. 2541 Briefs and Other Related Documents Related Westlaw Journal Article Supreme Court of the United States WAL MART STORES, INC., Petitioner, v. DUKES et al. No. 10 277. Argued March 29, 2011.
More informationLatham & Watkins Corporate Department. The Lessons of Slayton v. American Express for Forward-Looking Statements
Number 1044 June 10, 2010 Client Alert Latham & Watkins Corporate Department Second Circuit Wades Into the PSLRA Safe Harbor The Lessons of Slayton v. American Express for Forward-Looking Statements Specific,
More informationCase 3:11-cv JPG-PMF Document 140 Filed 01/19/16 Page 1 of 11 Page ID #1785
Case 3:11-cv-00879-JPG-PMF Document 140 Filed 01/19/16 Page 1 of 11 Page ID #1785 EQUAL EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITY COMMISSION, IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS vs.
More informationLatham & Watkins Environment, Land & Resources Department
Number 937 September 22, 2009 Client Alert Latham & Watkins Environment, Land & Resources Department The Local Controversy Exception to the Class Action Fairness Act Preston, Kaufman and Coffey An understanding
More informationRecent Developments In Class Action Litigation: Dukes, Comcast, Glazer and Beyond
Recent Developments In Class Action Litigation: Dukes, Comcast, Glazer and Beyond Presented by John Beisner Beijing Boston Brussels Houston London Los Angeles Palo Alto Paris São Paulo Tokyo Toronto Washington,
More informationCase 1:96-cv KMW Document 321 Filed 12/05/12 Page 1 of 51
Case 1:96-cv-08414-KMW Document 321 Filed 12/05/12 Page 1 of 51 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK ----------------------------------------------------X GULINO, ET AL., -against-
More informationCase 1:09-cv WYD-KMT Document 161 Filed 04/20/12 USDC Colorado Page 1 of 14
Case 1:09-cv-02757-WYD-KMT Document 161 Filed 04/20/12 USDC Colorado Page 1 of 14 Civil Action No. 09-cv-02757-WYD-KMT IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLORADO Chief Judge Wiley
More information