Today the U.S. Supreme Court decided Campbell-Ewald Co. v. Gomez, No. 14-857. The question presented was whether an unaccepted offer of full relief on the named plaintiff’s individual claim will render a putative class action moot. The answer is “no,” according to a 5-3 opinion by Justice Ginsburg (with a separate concurrence by Justice
Supreme Court
Thoughts on Tyson Foods Oral Argument
By Wystan Ackerman on
Posted in Class Certification Standards
Tyson Foods, Inc. v. Bouaphakeo, the third and last of the three class action cases that the U.S. Supreme Court is hearing this Fall was argued yesterday. Articles in the New York Times and USA Today have suggested that the plaintiffs are likely to win this case because Justice Kennedy’s comments suggested he would…
Thoughts on Supreme Court Oral Argument in Spokeo, Inc. v. Robins
By Wystan Ackerman on
Posted in Defense Strategy
Yesterday, the Supreme Court heard oral argument in Spokeo, Inc. v. Robins, No. 13-1339 (SCOTUSBlog page). The question presented is “Whether Congress may confer Article III standing upon a plaintiff who suffers no concrete harm, and who therefore could not otherwise invoke the jurisdiction of a federal court, by authorizing a private…
Campbell-Ewald Co. v. Gomez: Thoughts on Supreme Court Oral Argument
By Wystan Ackerman on
Posted in Defense Strategy
Campbell-Ewald Co. v. Gomez was argued yesterday in the U.S. Supreme Court. It is one of several major class action cases that will be decided by the Court this Term. It presents the question of whether a putative class action case becomes moot when the defendant offers complete relief to the named plaintiff (for more…
Spokeo, Inc. v. Robins: Supreme Court to Decide Class Action Standing Issue
By Wystan Ackerman on
Posted in Defense Strategy
The U.S. Supreme Court recently granted certiorari in Spokeo, Inc. v. Robins, No. 13-1339 (SCOTUSblog page), to decide whether a plaintiff who does not suffer any injury has Article III standing to sue for violation of a federal statute. The case will not be argued until the next Supreme Court Term, likely…
Supreme Court Opinion in Dart Cherokee Basin v. Owens
By Wystan Ackerman on
Posted in Class Action Fairness Act
Yesterday, the U.S. Supreme Court issued its opinion in Dart Cherokee Basin Operating Co., LLC v. Owens, No. 13-719 (slip opinion). Unsurprisingly, the Court held that a notice of removal under the Class Action Fairness Act does not need to attach evidence regarding the amount in controversy. Given that the removal statute …
Supreme Court Oral Argument in Dart Cherokee Basin v. Owens
By Wystan Ackerman on
Posted in Class Action Fairness Act
The U.S. Supreme Court heard oral argument this week in Dart Cherokee Basin Operating Co. v. Owens, No. 13-719 (SCOTUSblog page) (transcript). This case involves whether a defendant must provide evidence with its notice of removal under the Class Action Fairness Act to support the amount in controversy. I wrote …
Supreme Court To Decide Whether Evidence Must Be Submitted With Notice of Removal: Dart Cherokee Basin v. Owens
By Wystan Ackerman on
Posted in Class Action Fairness Act
Earlier this week, the U.S. Supreme Court granted certiorari in Dart Cherokee Basin Operating Co., LLC v. Owens, No. 13-719 (docket). The question presented is:
Whether a defendant seeking removal to federal court is required to include evidence supporting federal jurisdiction in the notice of removal, or is alleging the required “short …
Mississippi ex. rel. Hood v. AU Optronics Corp.: Supreme Court Decides What Constitutes a “Mass Action” Under the Class Action Fairness Act
By Wystan Ackerman on
Posted in Class Action Fairness Act
Today, the U.S. Supreme Court issued its second decision construing the Class Action Fairness Act of 2005 (“CAFA”) in Mississippi ex. rel. Hood v. AU Optronics Corp., No. 12-1036 (slip opinion). In a unanimous opinion authored by Justice Sotomayor (for whom I was a law student intern years ago when she was …
Mississippi v. AU Optronics Corp.: Oral Argument in U.S. Supreme Court
By Wystan Ackerman on
Posted in Class Action Fairness Act
The U.S. Supreme Court recently heard oral argument in its second case involving the Class Action Fairness Act (“CAFA”), which is Mississippi ex. rel. Hood v. AU Optronics Corp., No. 12-1036 (see oral argument transcript; SCOTUSblog page). The question presented is “Whether a state’s parens patriae action is removable as a ‘mass …