Header graphic for print
Class Defense Blog Cutting-Edge Issues in Class Action Law and Policy

Kevin Ranlett

Kevin Ranlett

Kevin Ranlett is a partner in the firm's Supreme Court & Appellate and Consumer Litigation & Class Actions practices. He has defended businesses in dozens of complex class and representative actions in state and federal courts across the country and before the American Arbitration Association. In addition to drafting critical trial motions, Kevin has a substantial appellate practice. He has written merits or amicus briefs in appeals involving issues of class certification, arbitration, securities law, federal preemption, the Alien Tort Statute, punitive damages, and employment discrimination. He also advises businesses in drafting and enforcing consumer and employee arbitration agreements.

Read Kevin's full bio.

Posts by Kevin Ranlett

Where Will the Zip Code Class Actions Be Filed Next?

By Kevin Ranlett on Posted in Class Action Trends

Over the past two years, a big growth area for plaintiffs’ lawyers has been cases challenging the use of zip codes or other identifying information by merchants that process credit-card transactions. In 2011, the California Supreme Court held in Pineda v. Williams-Sonoma Stores that a zip code constitutes “personal identification information” under California’s Song-Beverly Credit… Continue Reading

“Sure I Didn’t Buy It, But I’m Suing for False Advertising Anyway!”

By Dale J. Giali and Kevin Ranlett on Posted in Motions Practice

As we have blogged before, the food and beverage industry is facing a tidal wave of class action litigation alleging false advertising under state consumer protection laws. We monitor hundreds of these cases, which often present a similar standing issue – the class representative has purchased one product, say Ben & Jerry’s All Natural Chunky… Continue Reading

Supreme Court Issues Narrow Decision Declining to Overturn Arbitrator’s Ruling that Silent Arbitration Clause Permits Class Arbitration

By Archis A. Parasharami and Kevin Ranlett on Posted in Arbitration, U.S. Supreme Court

We’ve previously blogged about the Supreme Court’s grant of review and argument in Oxford Health Plans LLC v. Sutter.  Today, the Supreme Court issued its decision (pdf).  In a narrowly-written ruling, the  Court held that courts lack authority under the Federal Arbitration Act (FAA) to vacate an arbitral award authorizing class arbitration when when (1) the… Continue Reading

Court Allows Employer Discovery Into Whether EEOC Actually Investigated Before Filing Discrimination Suit

By Kevin Ranlett on Posted in Employment

A quick tip to employers facing class actions brought by the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC)—don’t forget about the EEOC’s statutory duty to investigate the claim before filing suit. Before the EEOC may file a lawsuit, an employee must have made a timely charge of discrimination of which the EEOC timely notified the employer and… Continue Reading

US Chamber of Commerce Takes Up Recess Appointments Fight in Supreme Court

By Kevin Ranlett on Posted in Employment, U.S. Supreme Court

We’ve blogged about the D.C. Circuit’s ruling in Noel Canning v. NLRB (pdf) that President Obama’s three 2012 recess appointments to the National Labor Relations Board are unconstitutional. The consequence of that decision was to invalidate the NLRB decision against Noel Canning for lack of a quorum of NLRB members. The decision also cast a dark… Continue Reading

Supreme Court To Decide Whether Parens Patriae Suits Can Be Removed Under Class Action Fairness Act

By Archis A. Parasharami and Kevin Ranlett on Posted in Class Action Trends, U.S. Supreme Court

We’ve blogged before about whether parens patriae lawsuits filed by state attorneys’ general to recover money on behalf of state citizens can be removed under the Class Action Fairness Act (CAFA). (CAFA authorizes defendants to remove certain “mass actions” involving “monetary relief claims of 100 or more persons” from state court to federal court. 28… Continue Reading

FCC Addresses Vicarious Liability Under Telephone Consumer Protection Act

By Kevin Ranlett and Archis A. Parasharami on Posted in Motions Practice

Plaintiffs in some TCPA class actions have taken the position that companies are strictly liable for any violation of the TCPA by third parties that make calls or send faxes on the companies’ behalf (such as third-party marketers or debt collectors).  The FCC, however, has just issued a declaratory ruling that appears to reject that… Continue Reading

Eighth Circuit Holds that a Plaintiff who Settles Individual Claims Lacks Standing to Challenge Denial of Class Certification

By Kevin Ranlett on Posted in Appeals, Class Certification

Here’s a common scenario:  After unsuccessfully moving for class certification and having a petition for review under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23(f) rebuffed, the plaintiff wants to take another shot at an appeal.  Can the plaintiff simply settle his individual claims—subject to his right to appeal the denial of class certification—so that he has a… Continue Reading

Fourth Circuit Nixes Requirement that All Defendants Physically Sign Notice of Removal To Federal Court

By Kevin Ranlett on Posted in Motions Practice

The Fourth Circuit recently weighed in on a technical question involving the process for removing a case against multiple defendants to federal court—namely, whether every defendant must actually sign the notice of removal. The Fourth Circuit concluded that “[w]e can see no policy reason why removal in a multiple-defendant case cannot be accomplished by the… Continue Reading

Article on Alien Tort Statute after Kiobel

By Kevin Ranlett on Posted in Class Action Trends, U.S. Supreme Court

We’ve previously discussed the Supreme Court’s decision in Kiobel v. Royal Dutch Petroleum. The American Lawyer Litigation Daily has just published a column by my colleague, Andy Pincus, responding to another columnist’s lament that Kiobel has rendered claims under the Alien Tort Statute “a zombie doctrine—not quite alive and not quite dead.”  Andy provides a… Continue Reading

U.S. Seeks Supreme Court Review of Noel Canning v. NLRB in an Effort to Rehabilitate Recess Appointments to NLRB (and CFPB)

By Kevin Ranlett on Posted in Employment, U.S. Supreme Court

We’ve previously written about the D.C. Circuit’s decision in Noel Canning v. NLRB, which held that President Obama’s three recess appointments in 2012 to the National Labor Relations Board (NLRB) are unconstitutional. The Solicitor General has just filed a petition for certiorari, asking the Supreme Court to review the D.C. Circuit’s decision. The Obama administration’s… Continue Reading

Nip A Class Action In The Bud By Moving To Strike the Class Allegations

By Kevin Ranlett on Posted in Class Certification, Motions Practice

One of the reasons that companies hate class actions is that, win or lose, the defense costs are often enormous. Usually, it’s discovery that leads to eye-popping numbers on the bills—whether from law firms themselves, contract attorneys, or e-discovery vendors. But defendants have an often overlooked tool for attempting to avoid costs related to discovery—the… Continue Reading

Supreme Court Holds That Alien Tort Statute Doesn’t Apply Extraterritorially

By Andrew J. Pincus and Kevin Ranlett on Posted in Class Action Trends, U.S. Supreme Court

Today, the Supreme Court issued its long-awaited decision in Kiobel v. Royal Dutch Petroleum (pdf) on the scope of the Alien Tort Statute (“ATS”), 28 U.S.C. § 1350, a law that creates federal jurisdiction for civil actions brought by aliens for torts committed in violation of the law of nations or a U.S. treaty. In Kiobel,… Continue Reading

Supreme Court Holds that Plaintiff Whose Individual Claims Were Mooted by an Offer of Judgment Lacks Standing to Maintain FLSA Collective Action

By Kevin Ranlett on Posted in Employment, U.S. Supreme Court

The Fair Labor Standards Act of 1938 (“FLSA”) permits an employee to file a “collective action” for damages against an employer individually and on behalf of other “similarly situated” employees who later choose to join the lawsuit. 29 U.S.C. § 216(b). In Genesis Healthcare Corp. v. Symczyk, before any other employee had opted to join… Continue Reading

Judge Mulls Appointment of Own Expert to Evaluate What Could Be the Largest-Ever Class Settlement of Private Antitrust Claims

By Kevin Ranlett on Posted in Antitrust, Class Action Settlements

It’s rare for a court to appoint its own expert in a class action. But Judge Gleeson of the Eastern District of New York is poised to do precisely that in order to help him decide whether to grant final approval to the $7.25 billion proposed class settlement of antitrust claims by retailers challenging Visa’s… Continue Reading

Do the Plaintiffs Lack Standing or Are Their Claims Simply Meritless—or Both?

By Kevin Ranlett on Posted in Adequacy, Class Action Trends, Class Certification, Commonality, Predominance, Typicality

Here’s the situation: You’re facing a class action in federal court in which the plaintiffs define the putative class so broadly as to encompass many people who weren’t injured by the alleged wrongdoing. For example, consider a false-advertising class action on behalf of “all purchasers” of a product that the vast majority of purchasers would… Continue Reading

California Trial Court Rejects “Trial by Formula” Approach to False-Advertising Class Action and Sets Aside Verdict

By Kevin Ranlett on Posted in Class Certification, Motions Practice

In state courts, sometimes you lose even when you win. In a recent false-advertising class action, a California Superior Court entered an order concluding that the testimony of the plaintiffs’ expert—who was the linchpin of the case for class certification and on the merits—was inadmissible, which meant that the defendant was entitled to judgment as… Continue Reading

Supreme Court Reverses Certification of Antitrust Class Action Where Class Failed To Prove That Damages Could Be Determined On A Classwide Basis

By Archis A. Parasharami and Kevin Ranlett on Posted in Antitrust, Class Certification, Predominance, U.S. Supreme Court

An important and recurring issue in class actions is whether a district court must consider particular merits issues when deciding whether to certify a class under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23. Today, in Comcast Corp. v. Behrend (pdf), No. 11-864, the Supreme Court reversed the certification of an antitrust class action because the district court… Continue Reading

Supreme Court Denies Review In NECA-IBEW Case

By Kevin Ranlett on Posted in Adequacy, Class Certification, Commonality, Predominance, Securities, Typicality

We’ve been blogging about the Second Circuit’s decision in NECA-IBEW Health & Welfare Fund v. Goldman Sachs (pdf), which held that a named plaintiff in a securities fraud suit might have standing in some situations to assert class action claims regarding securities that he or she never purchased. Yesterday, the Supreme Court denied (pdf) Goldman’s petition… Continue Reading

How Can Class Action Defendants Control E-Discovery Costs?

By Kevin Ranlett on Posted in Class Action Trends, Motions Practice

My colleague Anthony Diana publishes monthly tips for businesses seeking to navigate the shoals of modern document-preservation and e-discovery practice. Readers of the blog might be particular interested in the column on strategies for businesses that have been targeted by class actions. Past tips that might be of particular interest to class-action defendants include: Reducing… Continue Reading