Last Friday, the U.S. Supreme Court issued a new decision on the requirement that plaintiffs have “standing” to sue in federal court. More specifically, the Court addressed what is required for a plaintiff to demonstrate “concrete harm.” Following this decision, defendants in class actions will have significant strategic decisions to make about whether and when
Defense Strategy
Does Bristol-Myers Squibb Apply to Class Actions? D.C. and Seventh Circuit Issue New Decisions
By Wystan Ackerman on
Posted in Defense Strategy
This week the D.C. Circuit and Seventh Circuit issued decisions addressing a question that has been hotly debated by class action lawyers on the plaintiffs’ and defense sides: whether the Supreme Court’s decision on personal jurisdiction in Bristol-Myers Squibb Co. v. Superior Court of California, 137 S. Ct. 1773 (2017) (blog post)…
Tendering Full Relief to Moot a Class Action: It’s Still Possible in Illinois
By Wystan Ackerman on
Posted in Defense Strategy
When a business is sued in a proposed class action and there is only a small amount at stake on the named plaintiff’s claim, often one of the first thoughts that comes to mind is: can’t we just pay the full value of the named plaintiff’s claim and make the case go away? As you…
Superiority and Mootness of Injunctive Relief Claim Addressed in Recent Denial of Class Certification
By Wystan Ackerman on
Posted in Auto Insurance, Defense Strategy
A recent decision by a Washington federal district court caught my eye because it involved a circumstance I often see—a new development in the law results in a class action lawsuit being filed before the defendant has an opportunity to change its practices in response to the change (or clarification) in the law. This decision…
Sixth Circuit Reminds District Courts and Defendants That Notice Must Be Given Before Binding Class Members
By Wystan Ackerman on
Posted in Defense Strategy
A recent decision by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit provides an important reminder that if defendants want absent class members to be bound by a summary judgment ruling in their favor, generally they must insist that notice be given to the class before that ruling is made.
In Faber v. Ciox…
Lack of Standing in TCPA Class Action Results in Remand to State Court, Says The Eighth Circuit
By Wystan Ackerman on
Posted in Defense Strategy
A recent decision by the Eighth Circuit in a Telephone Consumer Protection Act (TCPA) class action provides an important pointer for defendants and their counsel with respect to strategy in defending a putative class action. The key takeaway is to take into consideration whether the case was originally filed in federal court or removed from…
Judge Kavanaugh on Class Actions
By Wystan Ackerman on
Posted in Defense Strategy
With Judge Brett Kavanaugh’s nomination to the Supreme Court, one question to ask is whether, if he is confirmed, that will move the Court to any degree in class action cases. Unfortunately, we don’t have much to look at. The D.C. Circuit, with its small geographic footprint, is not a hotbed of class action filings.…
Sveen v. Melin: Supreme Court Speaks On the Contracts Clause
By Wystan Ackerman on
Posted in Defense Strategy
After a decades-long drought, the Supreme Court recently decided a case involving the Contracts Clause of the Constitution. You might not recall that provision because it is so rarely invoked in modern-day litigation (due to how it has been construed). It provides that “[n]o state shall . . . pass . . . any Law…
China Agritech, Inc. v. Resh: Class Actions Toll Statutes of Limitations Only for Individual Suits
By Wystan Ackerman on
Posted in Defense Strategy
Yesterday, in China Agritech, Inc. v. Resh, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled that, under its prior decision in American Pipe & Constr. Co. v. Utah, 414 U.S. 538 (1974), the filing of a putative class action suit tolls the statutes of limitations only to allow individual, non-class suits to be filed after class…
Nationwide and Multi-State Class Actions Likely Limited by Bristol-Myers Squibb Decision
By Wystan Ackerman on
Posted in Defense Strategy
In Bristol-Myers Squibb Co. v. Superior Court, 137 S. Ct. 1773 (2017), the U.S. Supreme Court held that the California state courts lacked personal jurisdiction over claims made by out-of-state plaintiffs in a mass action, where the plaintiffs did not claim that they were harmed in California and the defendant’s relevant conduct did not…