Supreme Court


June 26, 2014 11:40 AM | Posted by Ben Seessel and Jacob Hathorn | Permalink
Earlier this week the Supreme Court reaffirmed the validity of the “fraud-on-the-market” presumption of reliance that significantly eases the burden on investors in obtaining certification of private securities fraud class actions, but held that defendants must be permitted an opportunity at the class certification stage to rebut the presumption through direct or indirect evidence showing that the alleged misrepresentations did not impact the stock price. read more
June 20, 2013 4:14 PM | Posted by Roberts, Joshua | Permalink

In a 5-3 Decision penned by Justice Scalia, the Supreme Court once again backed the use of arbitration agreements.  The Court ruled that the public policy favoring arbitration of claims is stronger than the public policy supporting vindication of federal antitrust rights. 

read more
April 28, 2013 4:53 PM | Posted by Kirkwood, Allison | Permalink
Florida defendants can now be assured that Concepcion applies in Florida to state statutory claims. read more
April 17, 2013 8:15 AM | Posted by Roberts, Joshua | Permalink

In a 5-3 decision written by Justice Thomas, the Supreme Court made clear that class actions under Rule 23 are “fundamentally different” from collective actions under the Fair Labor Standards Act. 

read more
March 19, 2013 3:01 PM | Posted by D. Matthew Allen | Permalink
The Supreme Court issued the second decision this term that will impact class action law. The issue in Standard Fire Ins. Co. v. Knowles, No. 11-1450 (March 19, 2013) concerned the common practice of a plaintiff who files a class action in state court (typically in a “hell hole” jurisdiction for defendants), and in the complaint stipulates, prior to certification of the class, that he and the class he seeks to represent will not seek damages that exceed $5 million in total. The goal, of course, is to thwart the defendant’s ability to remove the case to federal court. The Court unanimously held that such a stipulation does not have its intended effect and neither binds the class nor removes the case from CAFA’s scope. See the Court’s reasoning below the fold. read more
November 26, 2012 8:22 AM | Posted by Roberts, Joshua | Permalink
The Supreme Court heard oral argument this month in Comcast Corp. et al. v. Behrend et al., No. 11-864, where the parties fought over whether the lower courts took a close enough look at plaintiffs’ model for damages.  The issues underlying oral arguments concerned … read more
October 30, 2012 1:43 PM | Posted by Roberts, Joshua | Permalink

On September 5th we blogged about the fact that the Supreme Court agreed to hear Standard Fire Insurance Company’s plea to remove a class action lawsuit that was filed against it, to federal court.  This case is of great importance to all future class action defendants as the Supreme Court will decide whether a named plaintiff can defeat a defendant’s right of removal (to federal court) under the Class Action Fairness Act (“CAFA”) by filing a class action complaint with a stipulation that limits damages for putative class members to less than $5 million.  Five million dollars is the magic number because that is the threshold amount for federal jurisdiction. If the Court allows such a stipulation, class action plaintiffs everywhere could use such stipulations to prevent defendants from removing cases from plaintiff-friendly state courts.

On October 22, 2012 Standard Fire filed its merits brief. See The Standard Fire Insurance Company v. Knowles, 2012 WL 5246242 (U.S.) (Appellate Brief). Find out what was argued in the brief after the jump.

read more
September 5, 2012 12:28 PM | Posted by Roberts, Joshua | Permalink
The U.S. Supreme Court has agreed to hear its first Class Action Fairness Act case – Standard Fire Insurance Co. v. Knowles, U.S., No. 11-1450, cert. granted Aug. 31, 2012.  The case stems from damage sustained to Plaintiff, Greg Knowles’ home due to a March 2010 hail storm.  Knowles claims that Standard Fire failed to pay his (and other similarly situated individuals’) full insurance reimbursement. read more
August 15, 2012 6:15 PM | Posted by Roberts, Joshua | Permalink
Back in April, we previously blogged about Ross v. RBS Citizens, N.A., where the Seventh Circuit affirmed certification of a class action in a wage-and-hour case after finding that the conditions of Rule 23(c)(1)(B) had been met.  Well, RBS has refused to throw in the towel... read more
July 30, 2012 1:31 PM | Posted by Kirkwood, Allison | Permalink
More than two years ago, the Eleventh Circuit certified questions to the Florida Supreme Court regarding class actions waivers in consumer contracts in Pendergast v. Sprint Nextel Corp., 592 F.3d 1119 (11th Cir. 2010).  In light of the United States Supreme Court's ruling in Concepcion, the Florida Supreme Court declined jurisdiction. read more
June 26, 2012 4:09 PM | Posted by Roberts, Joshua | Permalink

The Supreme Court has agreed to decide the fate of an antitrust class action lawsuit that was brought by 2 million Comcast customers who were allegedly overcharged to the tune of $875 million.   

read more
April 10, 2012 5:58 PM | Posted by Katherine Heckert | Permalink
In Coneff v. AT&T Corp., the Ninth Circuit again considered the implications of the recent Supreme Court case, AT&T Mobility, Inc. v. Concepcion, to determine whether the Federal Arbitration Act preempted state law in Washington. Find out what the court found, after the jump. read more
February 10, 2012 9:39 AM | Posted by Katherine Heckert | Permalink
Three years after initial class certification, the Ninth Circuit in Mazza v. American Honda, No. 09-55376 (Jan. 12, 2012) reviewed the District Court’s opinion, considering, in part, whether the Wal-Mart affirmative burden to demonstrate that a common question of fact or law exists was met to resolve the issues “in one stroke.”  Were such common issues present in Mazza, where consumers across the country were exposed to different advertising?  Find out, after the jump. read more