Yet another class action settlement looks like it will have unclaimed funds at the end of the claims period. The settlement between AMT, Montreal’s transport agency, and a class consisting of more than 19,000 commuters from the West Island, was approved by the Quebec Superior Court last fall, yet has only resulted in approximately 1,000 applications for a share of the settlement proceeds.
Taking a Pass On a “Reclass” Class (or Collective): Court Denies Reclassified Employees’ Certification Motion
The decision whether to reclassify employees whose exempt status is arguable can sometimes create something of a double bind for employers: reclassification should be the conservative approach, but it also can be risky if it is interpreted as evidence that the prior classification was wrong.
As readers of this blog are well aware, manufacturers and retailers have faced a tidal wave of consumer class actions alleging false advertising in recent years. In these cases, the plaintiffs bemoan how they were deceived by the labels or advertising of all kinds of products – from yogurt to waffles to dog food to shampoo.
The Texas Supreme Court has finally done away with the prohibition on seat-belt evidence in auto accident cases.
In In Re Capital One Telephone Consumer Protection Act Litigation, Case No. 12-CV-10064, 2015 WL 605203 (N.D. Ill. Feb. 12, 2015), Judge James Holderman of the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Illinois recently approved an unprecedented $75,455,099 settlement for 1,378,534 class members in a Telephone Consumer Protection Act (“TCPA”) class action and awarded plaintiffs’ counsel a whopping $15,668,265 in fees.
Recently, a California federal court denied Nordstrom, Inc.’s and designer jean manufacturer, AG Adriano Goldschmeid’s request for an interlocutory review of the district court’s denial of their motion to dismiss the Plaintiff’s class action complaint alleging consumer fraud related to their use of “Made in USA” labels.
The Food and Drug Administration recently issued a “safety communication” warning that a common medical device used to perform procedures that over 500,000 Americans undergo annually, may put patients at risk for developing “super bug” infections.
In NECA-IBEW v. Goldman Sachs, the Second Circuit arguably opened up a new door in class action litigation when it held that investors in one securities offering had standing to represent a putative class of investors in other offerings, as long as the fraud claims on both securities gave rise to “the same set of concerns.”
In a $358 million agreement, which has drawn nationwide attention from insurers and other companies with asbestos liabilities, Garlock Sealing Technologies has agreed to settle all asbestos claims against the company.