John Nadolenco is an experienced civil litigator whose practice is focused on class-action defense, including defending consumer class actions, employment class actions, and securities and derivative cases. Additionally, John also has experience advising clients on privacy issues and defending clients in privacy-related cases. John served as co-editor of Mayer Brown’s The Social Media Revolution: A Legal Handbook.
Read John's full bio.

The Supreme Court today issued its decision in Spokeo, Inc. v. Robins (pdf), a closely-watched case presenting the question whether Article III’s “injury-in-fact” requirement for standing to sue in federal court may be satisfied by alleging a statutory violation without any accompanying real world injury.

The Court held that a plaintiff must allege “concrete” harm—which it described as harm that is “real”—to have standing to sue, and that the existence of a private right of action under a federal statute does not automatically suffice to meet the “real” harm standard. The decision is likely to have a meaningful impact on class action litigation based on alleged statutory violations. Justice Alito authored the opinion for the Court, joined by Chief Justice Roberts and Justices Kennedy, Thomas, Breyer, and Kagan. (We and our colleagues represented Spokeo before the Supreme Court.)


Continue Reading

Under Article III of the U.S. Constitution, a plaintiff must allege that he or she has suffered an “injury-in-fact” to establish standing to sue in federal court. Today, the Supreme Court granted certiorari in Spokeo, Inc. v. Robins, No. 13-1339, to decide whether Congress may confer Article III standing by authorizing a private

The Ninth Circuit recently clarified the circumstances in which a plaintiff who settles his or her individual claims can appeal the denial of class certification of related claims. In Campion v. Old Republic Protection Company (pdf), the Ninth Circuit dismissed a class certification appeal as moot because the plaintiff had settled his individual claims. The

Since 2006, companies based outside California have been alert to the potential burdens of class actions under California’s Invasion of Privacy Act (“CIPA”), Cal. Penal Code § 630 et seq. The laws of most states, as well as federal law, allow telephone calls to be recorded with the consent of one party to the call.

The plaintiffs’ bar continues to march forward in bringing privacy-related class actions. As we’ve written before, companies have often been able to defeat such lawsuits at the pleading stage when plaintiffs cannot allege that they suffered a harm that was concrete or cognizable. But that trend has not been universal: In a recent case

A key question in many privacy class actions is whether the plaintiff has suffered an injury sufficient to confer Article III standing. Quite a number of these actions have been dismissed for lack of standing. The plaintiffs’ bar therefore has been brainstorming new theories of injury in the hope that one of them will be

In recent months, we have seen growing interest in potential privacy issues in the context of mobile applications. Earlier this month, California Attorney General Kamala D. Harris released an official report—“Privacy On the Go: Recommendations for the Mobile Ecosystem”—with new privacy recommendations for the mobile industry. The report, while providing a “template” for

Class actions alleging that employers’ meal-break policies violate California law have long been a favorite of the plaintiffs’ bar.  Earlier this year, however, the California Supreme Court handed employers a victory in Brinker Restaurant Corp v. Superior Court, 53 Cal. 4th 1004 (Cal. 2012), holding that the obligation under the California Labor Code to