Third Circuit

September 23, 2014 10:38 AM | Posted by Clifton R. Gruhn and Ben V. Seessel | Permalink
Plaintiffs alleged in their putative nationwide class action complaint that Quest Diagnostics was liable for consumer fraud, unjust enrichment, and violations of the Fair Debt Collections Practices Act for overbilling putative class members and, in some instances, sending them improper written demands from debt collectors. read more
August 13, 2014 2:46 PM | Posted by Amy L. Hurwitz and Jaret J. Fuente | Permalink

“Because of the fundamental differences between classwide and individual arbitration, and the consequences of proceeding with one rather than the other, … the availability of classwide arbitration is a substantive ‘question of arbitrability’ to be decided by a court absent clear agreement otherwise,” the Third Circuit held.

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
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
June 11, 2012 10:17 AM | Posted by Cipriani, Jon A. | Permalink
CAFA defendants mulling their options after a remand order should carefully consider what court they would prefer to be in: litigating on the merits in state court could well foreclose any chance of having the case removed to federal court. That's the lesson of Probola v. Long & Foster Real Estate, Inc., 2012 WL 1959559 (3d Cir. June 1, 2012), which saw the Third Circuit accept, then dismiss as improvidently granted, an appeal from the district court's remand order. read more
March 15, 2012 11:35 AM | Posted by Cipriani, Jon A. | Permalink
The Third Circuit didn’t cite The Who in McNair v. Synapse Group, Inc., 2012 WL 695655 (3d Cir. March 6, 2012). But it would have been appropriate. The named plaintiffs argued that it was only a matter of time before they fell for the defendant's allegedly deceptive magazine subscription marketing tactics. But a skeptical Third Circuit seemed to think that the plaintiffs just won’t get fooled again—or at least that the possibility was too far-fetched to count as a reasonable likelihood of future injury for standing purposes. read more