Class Actions in ‘Substance’ Fall Within the Ambit of CAFA

Barbara Williams v. Employers Mutual Casualty Company et al., 2017 WL 117148 (8th Cir. 2017). In affirming the judgment of a District Court’s order denying plaintiff’s motion to remand, the Eighth Circuit found that an equitable garnishment action against insurers and land owners, although labeled otherwise, is a class action in “substance” for the purpose of CAFA because the garnishment action emerged from a class action filed in state court. View Full Post
Tweet Like LinkedIn LinkedIn Google Plus

Monsanto Uses the Constitution to Challenge Warning Labels for Herbicide

Monsanto has, at least temporarily, lost its fight to avoid a Prop 65 warning label on its products containing glyphosate, a chemical used in the popular herbicide Roundup. On January 27, 2017, a California judge tentatively dismissed Monsanto’s claims that the State of California unconstitutionally turned to an unelected, European organization to decide whether glyphosate posed a cancer risk. View Full Post
Tweet Like LinkedIn LinkedIn Google Plus

Hotel California: Supreme Court Will Review Whether Plaintiffs Can Check in to California Courts from Afar

On January 9, 2017, the United States Supreme Court granted review over a case from the California Supreme Court that could affect whether plaintiffs can bring product liability and mass tort claims in states where they don’t live and didn’t suffer an injury. In Bristol-Myers Squibb Co. View Full Post
Tweet Like LinkedIn LinkedIn Google Plus

CAFA Does Not Trump Valid Forum Selection Clause

Bartels v. Saber Healthcare Group, LLC, 2016 WL 6237811 (E.D.N.C. Oct. 25, 2016) A District Court in North Carolina remanded this putative class action after finding a forum selection clause, which limited venue to a geographic location that did not encompass a federal district court, effectively waived the right to remove to federal court.  View Full Post
Tweet Like LinkedIn LinkedIn Google Plus

CFPB Enforcement Actions Presage Bureau’s Post-Obama Approach

CFPB Enforcement Actions Presage Bureau’s Post-Obama Approach CFPB LogoThe impact of the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau’s recent crackdown on Prospect Mortgage, LLC, continues to reverberate throughout the real estate industry. Through that crackdown the bureau offers clues about how it intends to regulate in a Trump administration—and it’s not pretty. Late last month, the CPFB entered into a consent order against Prospect Mortgage stemming from the company’s improper referral activities, which violated the Real Estate Settlement Procedures Act. View Full Post
Tweet Like LinkedIn LinkedIn Google Plus

A Removing Defendant Under CAFA is Not Required to Allege Facts in Its Notice of Removal Showing the Inapplicability of the Local Controversy Exception

A Removing Defendant Under CAFA is Not Required to Allege Facts in Its Notice of Removal Showing the Inapplicability of the Local Controversy Exception Henry Hernandez v. Sysco Corp., 2017 WL 358021 (N.D. Cal., Jan. 25, 2017) In this wage and hour class action, while denying the plaintiff’s motion to remand, a District Court in California found that it was the plaintiff’s burden to show that the local controversy requirement applied, not the defendants’ burden to show that it did not, and that the defendants need not allege facts in the notice of removal showing the inapplicability of the local controversy exception. View Full Post
Tweet Like LinkedIn LinkedIn Google Plus

Be Careful What You Wish for, Part II: Would Companies Be Better Off Without the Fraud-on-the-Market Doctrine?

By | D&O Discourse | February 13, 2017
The villain in the fight against securities class actions is the fraud-on-the-market presumption of reliance established by the U.S. Supreme Court in 1988 in Basic Inc. v. Levinson, 485 U.S. 224 (1988).  Without Basic, the thinking goes, a plaintiff could not maintain a securities class action, and without securities class actions, View Full Post
Tweet Like LinkedIn LinkedIn Google Plus