In Wal-Mart v. Dukes, the U.S. Supreme Court rejected a proposed class of 1.5 million women who claimed they were discriminated against in separate hiring and promotion decisions by different managers throughout the nation
Under the Class Action Fairness Action of 2005, defendants may remove certain class actions to federal court if they meet the definition of “mass actions.”
Defendants in class action litigation in New York federal courts have historically enjoyed a favorable state law procedural rule in certain suits.
Loreto V. the Procter & Gamble Company: Southern District of Ohio Grants Motion to Strike Class Allegations in Consumer False Advertising Case
In a significant decision, the Southern District of Ohio granted, in full, the defendant’s motion to strike class allegations in a consumer false advertising class action before any significant discovery had taken place or the plaintiffs filed a motion for class certification.
California Court Continues Ascertainability Trend, Denies Class Certification in Chipotle “Naturally Raised” Litigation
Purveyors of mass-retail food products may have a new reason to rejoice this holiday season. On December 2, the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California, in Hernandez v. Chipotle Mexican Grill, Inc., quietly issued a three-page In Chambers Order denying class certification in a false advertising action challenging Chipotle’s claim that its products contain “Naturally Raised” meat.
We’ve blogged before about plaintiffs’ attempts 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.” 28 U.S.C. § 1332(d)(11)(B)(i).
In the several years since the Supreme Court decided Bell Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly and Ashcroft v. Iqbal, scholars and litigators have argued back and forth about the appropriate pleading standard for various kinds of lawsuits. One of the most vociferous parts of that debate is over whether class actions should be subject to increased pleading standards.
Arbitration is quickly becoming a major vehicle to resolve individual employee disputes. Now another obstacle to enforcing those arbitration agreements and class action waivers may have been removed.
We have frequently chronicled the ongoing efforts of the plaintiffs’ bar to circumvent the Supreme Court’s decision in AT&T Mobility LLC v. Concepcion, which held that the Federal Arbitration Act (FAA) requires the enforcement of parties’ agreements to resolve their disputes through individual arbitration rather than class or collective proceedings.
Ninth Circuit’s Judge Kozinski Takes Stand Against Anti-Consumer Wave of Change to Federal Civil Procedure
If you don’t think you can win fair and square, then change the rules. That’s been the modus operandi of the United States Chamber of Commerce (a private lobbying group with a misleading name) and the wealthy interests it represents, like the nation’s major insurance companies and product manufacturers.