In Maria De Lourdes Parra Marin (Plaintiff) v. Dave & Buster’s, Inc., a federal district judge in the Southern District of New York has denied a motion to dismiss a class action claim against the employer, Dave & Buster’s, Inc. (D&B).
On May 16, OEHHA issued its fifth iteration of the revised Proposition 65 warning regulations.
Last week, in a much anticipated decision, the U.S. Supreme Court addressed whether a consumer can sue over violations of statutory rights without herself having suffered an actual, concrete harm.
Following the Seventh Circuit’s recent decision in Lewert v. P.F. Chang’s China Bistro, Inc., 2016 U.S. App. LEXIS 6766 (7th Cir. Ill. Apr. 14, 2016), many commentators quickly pronounced the Seventh Circuit fertile territory for consumer data breach class actions.
This blog post is the second in a series of posts that Baker & Hostetler LLP is devoting to the significant decision Robins v. Spokeo, No. 13-1339, 537 U.S. ___ (2016) (Spokeo).
A slap in the face, maybe, after 11 years.
Tomorrow marks the twentieth anniversary of the Supreme Court’s decision in BMW of North America. Inc. v. Gore, the first time the Court had ever held that a punitive damages award was unconstitutionally excessive under the Due Process Clause.
In Martel v. Kia Canada inc. 2016 QCCS 2097, Justice Chantal Tremblay of the Superior Court ruled on a motion by Plaintiffs to amend their claim after the class action was authorized.
In his April 27, 2016 judgment in LBP Holdings v Allied Nevada Gold Corp., Justice Belobaba of the Ontario Superior Court of Justice refused to add the defendant issuing company’s underwriters as defendants to primary and secondary market misrepresentation claims under the Ontario Securities Act (“OSA”) in a putative class proceeding.
The Supreme Court has decided a case involving injury-in-fact and standing issues that may have significant impacts on class actions.