Ascertainability in Flux: Who’s in and who’s out
A recent decision by the Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals signals a growing divide among the circuits over the “ascertainability” question in class actions. In Mullins v. Direct Digital, LLC, No. 15-1776, — F.3d —, 2015 WL 4546159, at *1 (7th Cir. July 28, 2015),… Read More
Supreme Court Will Hear Case Where Defendant Says Lax Class Certification Standards Allowed the Use of Averages and an Improper “Trial by Formula”
The Supreme Court granted cert. yesterday in Tyson Foods, Inc. v. Bouaphakeo, No. 14-1146 (U.S. June 8, 2015), a case that raises important issues on how class and collective actions are certified and adjudicated—and may allow the Court to provide further guidance on questions it… Read More
Did The Ninth Circuit Just Give Plaintiffs—But Not Defendants—An Automatic Appeal From Class Certification Orders?
Don’t miss Microsoft’s in-house counsel Tim Fielden’s post on two important new Ninth Circuit decisions that permitted class action plaintiffs to dismiss their cases voluntarily and then appeal adverse class certification orders without first taking their individual cases to trial and securing a final judgment.… Read More
Third Circuit Clarifies Its Ascertainability Requirement: A Two-Part Inquiry—But Only a Two-Part Inquiry
The Third Circuit’s recent decision in Byrd v. Aaron’s Inc., No. 14-3050, 2015 WL 1727613 (3d Cir. Apr. 16, 2015), reversed a district court’s denial of class certification because the lower court incorrectly applied the ascertainability requirement to plaintiffs’ proposed Rule 23(b)(3) classes. The appellate… Read More
Class-Wide Unjust Enrichment Claims Doomed by Variation in State Law and Need for Individual Inquiries
This guest post was authored by our colleague Jennifer E. Canfield, an associate in Montgomery McCracken’s Litigation Department and a member of its Class Action Defense practice group. Her practice focuses on defense of consumer class actions, commercial litigation and appellate litigation. She can be… Read More
When Does a Hack Become a Compensable Harm in Federal Court?
This guest post was co-authored by Montgomery McCracken partner Michael B. Hayes and associate David F. Herman, both of the firm’s Litigation Department. Michael can be reached at 215.772.7211 or at mhayes@mmwr.com. David can be reached at 215.772.7614 or at dherman@mmwr.com. No business wants to… Read More
Second Circuit Says Comcast Does Not Bar Class Certification When Damages Require Individual Proof
Last week the Second Circuit joined a number of other circuits in ruling that the Supreme Court’s decision in Comcast Corp. v. Behrend, 569 U.S. ___, 133 S. Ct. 1426 (2013), does not require plaintiffs seeking class certification under Rule 23(b)(3) to show that damages… Read More
First Circuit Finds Plaintiff Lacks Standing In Unmanifested Defect Case
Claims based on enhanced risk of future harm just got harder to bring. Yesterday, the United States Court of Appeals for the First Circuit affirmed the dismissal of a complaint in which the plaintiff alleged the corrugated stainless steel tubing (CSST) in his home, used… Read More
France and Belgium Adopt Class Actions Spring 2014
This guest post was authored by our colleagues Christopher Scott D’Angelo and Jennifer E. Canfield. Christopher is a partner and chair of Montgomery McCracken’s international practice and co-chair of the products liability & risk management practice. His practice emphasizes litigation and preventive counseling in the… Read More
Third Circuit Rules That Whether a Contract Permits Classwide Arbitration is for the District Court, not the Arbitrator, to Decide
In a case of first impression, the Third Circuit has ruled that the district court, not an arbitrator, should decide whether classwide arbitration is available under a contract with an arbitration clause. Opalinski v. Robert Half International Inc., No. 12-4444, 2014 WL 3733685 (3d Cir.… Read More