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.
As a result of the Supreme Court’s decision last term in Comcast Corp. v. Behrend, many have speculated that courts will be particularly wary of certifying classes without a full examination of the merits of the underlying lawsuit.
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.”
Unpaid Intern Decision May Provide Second Circuit the Opportunity to Clarify Its Position On Class Certification in Light of Comcast
As we wrote about previously, the legality of unpaid internships is a hot issue this summer, with courts struggling over two issues: (1) whether employers must classify entry-level “interns” as employees under the law, and therefore pay them at least minimum wage and overtime, and (2) whether the job conditions of groups of interns are similar enough so that class action treatment is appropriate.
Pleading Setback Stalls N.J. Moldy Washing Machine Class Action, Which Will Face Uncertainty in Light of Comcast
A New Jersey moldy washing machine class action suffered a big pleading setback after the District of New Jersey held that the lengthy complaint still contained insufficient detail to place the defendant on notice of the precise misconduct alleged.
Back in January 2012, I posted a short item titled, Supreme Court Sets The Tone For 2012 Term: Might Makes Right, in which I recounted how the Supreme Court had begun the 2011-2012 term with two opinions that were great if you own a prison management company or fake credit repair company, but not so great if you were injured by a private prison’s malfeasance or defrauded by a consumer credit company.