A recent, comprehensive decision from the Central District of California lends valuable support to defendants’ ability to pursue pleading challenges and defenses in the context of food labeling class actions.
While the U.S. Supreme Court and federal courts of appeals have in recent years demanded rigorous scrutiny before authorizing certification of class actions, the Supreme Court of Canada has charted a different course.
On November 8, 2013, the Northern District of California certified a class of current and former student athletes seeking injunctive relief under the Sherman Act but declined to certify a damages subclass in the case In re NCAA Student-Athlete Name & Likeness Licensing Litig., 4:09-cv-01967-CW (N.D. Cal. November 8, 2013).
The British Columbia Court of Appeal recently upheld the denial of certification of a proposed class action involving routine strip searches at a Vancouver city jail. Thorburn v. British Columbia (Public Safety and Solicitor General) illustrates the difficulty of certification in cases that require an individual inquiry into the facts and circumstances unique to each class member.
On November 5, 2013, the Supreme Court of Ohio adopted the class certification principles announced in the U.S. Supreme Court’s decisions in Wal-Mart Stores, Inc. v. Dukes and Comcast v. Behrend.
The Supreme Court denies writs of certiorari in an overwhelming majority of cases. Most of the times these denials are formulaic and the Supreme Court does not provide a “look behind the curtain” as to why the Justices decided not to review a particular case, or how they view the merits of a case that they will not be reviewing.
This week, we ask the question: what happens to a class action after the defendants win an appeal?
In a consumer class action settlement involving allegedly sluggish Acer notebook computers, a Northern California federal judge sua sponte slashed the attorneys’ fees award sought by plaintiffs’ lawyers from the requested $2,542,246 to $943,217.
At long last, the United States Supreme Court is going to address the viability and/or prerequisites of the fraud-on-the-market presumption of reliance established by the Court in 1988 in Basic v. Levinson. Securities litigators, on both sides of the aisle, are understandably anxious, because our entire industry is about to change – either a little or a lot.
Earlier today, the U.S. Supreme Court granted review in Halliburton Co. v . Erica P. John Fund, No. 13-317, to address an important question affecting securities class actions: whether the “fraud-on-the market” presumption created by the Court in Basic, Inc. v. Levinson remains viable in light of new developments—both in economic thinking and in the marketplace—over the 25 years since Basic was decided.