October 23, 2014 1:49 PM | Posted by Michael Greenfield and Ben Seessel | Permalink
The Eastern District of Pennsylvania denied plaintiffs’ motion to certify certain issues under Rule 23(c)(4) and 23(b)(2), holding that the presence of numerous individualized questions, choice-of-law concerns, and other inefficiencies in the putative class litigation made certification inappropriate.  Allstate had terminated over 6,200 agents, 90% of whom happened to be over the age of 40, offering four different severance options to the terminated agents.  Three of the options offered enhanced severance benefits but required the agents to execute a release in order to be entitled to them.  Plaintiffs sought certification of four issues regarding the validity of the release: 1) involuntariness under a federal standard with respect to plaintiff’s federal claims, 2) unconscionability, 3) unclean hands, and 4) an obscure “part and parcel” theory derived from antitrust jurisprudence read more
August 17, 2012 9:30 AM | Posted by Clark, Johanna | Permalink
Judge Moody of the Middle District strikes class action allegations again stating, "[w]here the propriety of a class action procedure is plain from the initial pleadings, a district court may rule on this issue prior to the filing of a motion for class certification." read more
January 27, 2012 8:38 AM | Posted by Morande, Dean | Permalink
In Coastal Neurology, Inc. v. State Farm Automobile Insurance Company, No. 10-15837 (11th Cir. Jan. 25, 2012) (unpublished), the Eleventh Circuit affirmed the district court’s order denying class certification. In doing so, the court made clear once again that, although a district court may not resolve the merits of a case in ruling on a Rule 23 motion, an inquiry into the merits may be necessary to determine whether Rule 23 has been met.

Note: Carlton Fields represented State Farm in this litigation. read more