- On 5-4 ideological lines, Supreme Court rules against class certification in Comcast v. Behrend [decision PDF, Philadelphia Inquirer, PoL, Michael Schearer/Law in Plain English, earlier]
- American Express v. Italian Colors: will SCOTUS further restrict class actions via arbitration? [Daniel Fisher/Forbes and more, Michael Greve, Ted Frank debates Myriam Gilles, Ted at IBD and his earlier paper]
- Win for Ted Frank: 3rd Circuit vacates baby products class action pact that gave lawyers $14M, clients $3M [PoL, more, Fisher] If settlement symptoms persist: Ted objects in Bayer class action [CCAF]
- “Will ‘Sea Change’ in Florida Class Action Standards Unleash Flood of Suits?” [Frank Cruz-Alvarez, WLF]
- N.D. Calif. hears so many food marketing class actions some have nicknamed it the “Food Court” [Vanessa Blum, The Recorder]
- “What’s Next For The Class Action Plaintiffs’ Bar? Getting Deputized By State Attorneys General” [Kevin Ranlett]
- “Ninth Circuit Decision and Dissenters Cry Out for SCOTUS Review on Cy Pres in Settlements” [WLF]
Posts Tagged ‘class actions’
Class action confidential
Never mind the (alleged by former employee) lurid sex stuff, says Daniel Fisher, let’s talk about this law firm’s shortcomings in filing securities actions [Forbes]
Class action reform proposed in Arizona
Paul Karlsgodt at Class Action Blawg reports that the bill “sets forth some specific requirements for class certification that are much more exacting than those required under federal Rule 23 and most state class action rules” and summarizes the provisions as follows (quoting directly):
- clear and convincing evidence would be required to justify a grant of class certification
- orders granting class certification would have to be supported by a detailed written statement of the reasons and evidence justifying the decision
- in assessing superiority, the court would be required to consider, among other things, ”whether it is probable that the amount which may be recovered by individual class members will be large enough in relation to the expense and effort of administering the action to justify maintaining the case as a class action”
- there would be a rebuttable presumption against class certification in cases involving claims where individual knowledge, causation, and reliance are required elements
- certification of a case as a class action would not relieve any class member of the requirement of proving individual injury or damages
- class notice must include a statement of ”the possible financial consequences for the class”
- the law would expressly provide that the plaintiff would bear the initial cost of distributing notice to the class
- appeals from orders granting or denying class certification could be taken as a matter of right the same as a final judgment, and trial court proceedings would be automatically stayed pending the appeal.
Class action roundup
- Pursuing well-worn script following exposure of fib-laden memoirs, class action lawyers sue demanding reader refunds for Lance Armstrong autobiography [ABA Journal]
- Adventures of Ted Frank’s CCAF: Easy Saver coupon settlement; Southwest Airlines drink voucher; Asus Computer dongle giveaway. Plus: “Citigroup Plaintiff Lawyers Fire Back At Fee Objectors” [Daniel Fisher, Forbes]
- Wrongful termination complaint contains its share of juicy allegations regarding well-known plaintiff’s firm Hausfeld LLP [Andrew Trask]
- Calif.: “Judges Accuse Class Lawyers of Misconduct” [The Recorder; The Complex Litigator (Clarke v. First Transit, PDF)]
- Aiming to undermine Concepcion ruling, plaintiff lawyers seek to overwhelm system with arbitration demands [Reuters, earlier]
- How to get your class action settlement disapproved by the judge [Andrew Trask]
- “Papa John’s Facing $250 Million Text Message Spam Lawsuit” [PC Mag]
Class action suits against Subway over “Footlong” sandwich
11 inches is more like it, according to a bunch of lawyers who’ve filed class actions [ABC News, Chicago Tribune] Ron Miller is not too impressed.
P.S.: “I trust every member of the class will be able to prove that their foot is longer than their sandwich” [@eggs_over_easy]
Lip-syncing scandals
Dan Brillman at Reuters recalls the Milli Vanilli affair, which set the standard and led to some silly but lucrative class-action suits.
“One side pretends to more sophistication and the other to fewer funds…”
Andrew Trask notices an article in The Economist on the economics of bargaining between shipowners and Somali pirates, and realizes that the insights carry over to the economics of bargaining between defendants and class action lawyers. No prizes for guessing which side in the negotiation parallels that of the lawyers [Class Strategist]
Red Bull energy drink class action
Class action lawyers have filed suit saying that contrary to its marketing, the popular beverage doesn’t actually “give you wings.” [Reuters, ABA Journal] Meanwhile, the same scientific observation that underlies the lawyers’ action — that pharmacologically, the drinks don’t seem to deliver effects readily distinguishable from those of a strong coffee — is hard to square with the oft-expressed fear that Red Bull et al pose unusual risks to consumers, although the New York Times does seem to manage to keep both ideas in its head at once. [Jacob Sullum]
More: Ron Miller, in comments (“this completely mischaracterizes the lawsuit”).
“Plaintiffs lawyers in Skinnygirl margarita case have no class”
If you’re going to arrange a would-be class action on behalf of buyers dreadfully shocked that a ready-to-drink cocktail marketed as all-natural in fact included trace quantities of sodium benzoate, be sure your client does not lack “typicality.” [Alison Frankel, Reuters] Sodium benzoate is the sodium salt of benzoic acid, a spoilage retardant which occurs naturally in cranberries, plums, apples and other foodstuffs, but is typically synthesized for food use.
The “lurid, tragicomic” back story behind Standard Fire Insurance Co. v. Knowles
Roger Parloff at Fortune is out with a great piece on the Texarkana, Ark. shenanigans that led up to the Supreme Court’s decision to hear a case challenging evasion of the reformist Class Action Fairness Act (CAFA). I discuss at Cato at Liberty.