Over the past few years, a number of plaintiffs’ lawyers have attempted—with some success—to circumvent the “mass action” provisions in the Class Action Fairness Act of 2005 (“CAFA”), which allow defendants to remove to federal court certain cases raising “claims of 100 or more persons that are proposed to be tried jointly.”
The Ninth Circuit Holds That Res Judicata Bars State Recovery of Restitution for Members of a CAFA-Compliant Class Action
In California v. Intelligender, LLC, the Ninth Circuit ruled that final judgment in a CAFA-compliant class settlement barred the State of California from seeking restitution on behalf of members of the settlement class for losses caused by Intelligender’s allegedly false advertising of its gender predictive test. The Ninth Circuit rejected Intelligender’s efforts to block other remedies sought by the State.
For a long time, I have had a very specific law review article I’ve wanted to write, but with my many other commitments, it has never come to fruition.
During a May 2014 trip to London, I had the pleasure of meeting with various attorneys who do work with institutional investors such as pension funds.
A 2013 Ponemon Institute research report on Medical Identity Theft gave some good news… 64% of those interviewed who had been victims of medical identity theft reported they incurred $0 in additional out-of-pocket expense. For those companies whose systems had been the source of the stolen medical identities this was good news.
As Consumers Push for More Competitive Internet Marketplace, It’s Important to Remember Courts’ Role
As the Internet grows more and more ubiquitous in our lives, it’s about time that legislation is finally catching up. Much has been made of net neutrality lately, so how did we get here? A recent article for The New York Times says that it might have nothing to do with technology and everything to do with economics.
The Third Circuit recently ruled in Grandalski v. Quest Diagnostics, Inc., that the common law claims in a nationwide class action were not appropriate for class treatment because the court would be required to conduct an individual analysis and application of each state’s law and therefore common questions of law did not predominate.
Freedom from Religion Foundation: Seventh Circuit Reminds That Standing is Every Plaintiff’s Cross to Bear
There is something to be said for not paying your taxes. At least, that is one lesson that the plaintiffs may have learned from the Seventh Circuit’s opinion last Thursday in Freedom from Religion Foundation, Inc. v. Lew, No. 14-1152 (7th Cir. Nov. 13, 2014).
Removing All Doubt: The First Circuit Clarifies the Conditions Triggering the 30-Day Removal Window When the Earlier, Initial Pleading Does Not Disclose Grounds for Removal
In Romulus v. CVS Pharmacy, Inc., No. 14-1937, 2014 U.S. App. LEXIS 20548 (1st Cir. Oct. 24, 2014), the First Circuit Court of Appeals clarified the conditions triggering a defendant’s 30-day window to remove a case to federal court under the Class Action Fairness Act, 28 U.S.C. § 1332, when the earlier, initial pleading did not disclose a basis for CAFA removal.