I’ve noted before that Judge Posner of the Seventh Circuit has been particularly prolific in writing class certification opinions.  His latest one, Espenscheid v. DirectSat USA, Inc., No. 12-1943, 2013 U.S. App. LEXIS 2409 (7th Cir. Feb. 4, 2013), makes some key points about the usefulness of trial plans in evaluating whether class treatment

The Seventh Circuit recently provided additional guidance on the question of under what circumstances misconduct by plaintiff’s counsel can warrant denial of class certification.  In 2011, the Seventh Circuit addressed this issue in Creative Montessori Learning Ctrs. v. Ashford Gear, LLC, 662 F.3d 913 (7th Cir. 2011) (blog post), vacating and remanding

Judge Posner has been quite prolific in writing opinions on class certification.  His latest one addresses under what circumstances a Rule 23(b)(2) class can seek “incidental” monetary relief after Wal-Mart v. Dukes.  

In Johnson v. Meriter Health Servs. Employee Retirement Plan, No. 12-2216, 2012 U.S. App. LEXIS 24854 (7th Cir. Dec. 4, 2012)

The class action world is abuzz with discussion of Judge Posner’s recent opinion for the Seventh Circuit in Butler v. Sears, Roebuck & Co., Nos. 11-8029, 12-8030, 2012 U.S. App. LEXIS 23284 (7th Cir. Nov. 13, 2012).  This decision, finding class certification appropriate in a product defect case, could have reverberations beyond the products

Classes can still be certified post-Wal-Mart, even in large employment discrimination cases.  That seemed to be the message delivered by Judge Posner in his opinion for the Seventh Circuit in McReynolds v. Merrill Lynch, Pierce, Fenner & Smith, Inc., No. 11-3639, slip op. (7th Cir. Feb. 24, 2012).  The Seventh Circuit found

Regular readers of my blog may recall that my post last week about the ABA Premier Speaker Series webinar on class actions described how Mark Perry had made an interesting point that courts should focus more intently on Rule 23(c)(1)(B).  This is a sometimes overlooked subsection of Rule 23 that requires an order certifying a

The Seventh Circuit has started 2012 off with a significant class certification opinion.  Messner v. Northshore Univ. Healthsystem, No. 10-2514, 2012 U.S. App. LEXIS 731 (7th Cir. Jan. 13, 2012) was an antitrust case alleging that a merger of two hospitals violated federal antitrust laws, but the opinion speaks to several broader issues regarding

One tactic some defendants have tried to use in defending a class action is providing or offering to the named plaintiff the full relief requested on his or her individual claim.  Typically a named plaintiff’s individual claim in a class action is worth a relatively small sum, much smaller than the costs of defending the

Some trial judges have debated whether, when one or more attorneys for a proposed class are accused of ethical misconduct in a case, that is a matter only for the bar authorities or is an appropriate issue for class certification.  The Seventh Circuit recently held, quite forcefully, that misconduct by plaintiffs’ counsel is an appropriate

The Seventh Circuit recently issued a decision favorable to insurers regarding calculating the amount in controversy under the Class Action Fairness Act (CAFA).  In Keeling v. Esurance Insurance Company, 2011 U.S. App. LEXIS 19598 (7th Cir. Sept. 26, 2011), the plaintiff brought a class action alleging that certain UM/UIM coverage sold by Esurance was