MenuClose
Patrick T. Ryan is co-chair of the Appellate Litigation practice of Montgomery McCracken and is a member of the firm’s Class Action Defense practice group. His practice emphasizes commercial litigation, antitrust matters, the defense of professional liability claims, and business litigation involving claims asserted under the federal RICO statute.
Jun 09

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

Apr 30

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

Apr 29

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

Apr 01

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

Mar 20

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

Feb 17

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

Nov 05

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

Aug 22

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

Aug 13

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

Jun 17

Another Post-Clapper Data Privacy Breach Case Dismissed for Lack of Standing

The U.S. Supreme Court’s decision in Clapper v. Amnesty International USA, 133 S. Ct. 1138 (2013), continues to be relied on by federal courts to hold that “mere loss of data” or “increased risk of identity theft” in a data breach case does not constitute… Read More