Nearly a year ago, I praised an objection Judge Alex Kozinski filed — as a consumer, not a judge — to a proposed class action settlement that he was a part of, and so I was dismayed to see a recent article noting Judge Kozinski’s complaint that “There’s a tendency for lawyers to buy themselves off” in class actions.
Fourth Circuit Denies As Untimely a Request to Review a Decision On a Motion to Decertify a Class in Light of Comcast V. Behrend
On July 25, 2014, a three-judge panel of the Fourth Circuit refused to accept a Rule 23(f) interlocutory appeal in a case where an employer had asked the district court to decertify a hostile work environment class in light of Comcast Corp. v. Behrend, 133 S. Ct. 1426 (2013).
Ma (Labs) Knows Best—California Court Uses Comcast to Reject Certification of an Off-the-Clock Claim
California is bringing Comcast home—last week, California employers were the beneficiary of some down-home wisdom coming out of San Francisco.
On September 30, 2013, Judge George B. Daniels of the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York in Johnson, et al v. Nextel Communications, Inc., et. al., 2013 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 141445 (S.D.N.Y. Sept. 30, 2013) certified a class action – pursuant to Rule 23(c)(4) – of 587 employees of Nextel Communications, Inc. (“Nextel”) who allege that Nextel, and the former plaintiffs’ law firm representing these employees, engaged in various illegal acts against them by entering into a Dispute Resolution Settlement Agreement (“DSRA”) to resolve their employment discrimination claims.
I’ve tried to make this a blog with national coverage. This post is my first venture to Alaska, which is about as far from my home in Connecticut as one can get and still be in the U.S. (except, I suppose, for Hawaii).
D.C. Circuit Overturns Certification of Antitrust Class Action and Requires Reconsideration in Light of Comcast Corp. V. Behrend
Class-action lawyers on both sides of the “v.” have been debating the impact of the Supreme Court’s decision earlier this year in Comcast Corp. v. Behrend.
Sixth Circuit’s Recent Certification Ruling is Making a Splash in the Seventh Circuit’s Whirlpool Washer Case
As we reported two weeks ago, the Sixth Circuit on July 18 re-affirmed the certification of a liability-only class of Ohio consumers following the Supreme Court’s directive that it reconsider its previous affirmation of the same class in light of the decision in Comcast v. Behrend,133 S. Ct. 1426 (2013).
Last week I attended the Defense Research Institute (DRI) Class Action Seminar in Washington, DC. Here are some insights I gleaned from day 1 of the seminar (focusing on presentations that had some relevance to insurance class actions).
Three years ago, Professor Richard Epstein of the University of Chicago was peddling falsehoods and misconceptions about malpractice law that wouldn’t pass a 1L Torts class. Via Walter Olson, I see he’s back with a piece titled, “The Myth of a Pro-Business SCOTUS,” claiming “Commentators inaccurately condemn the five conservative justices as corporate shills.”