Before the Supreme Court’s decision last Term in Genesis Healthcare Corp. v. Symczyk, 133 S. Ct. 1523 (2013), the Ninth Circuit had held that a named plaintiff can continue to pursue a putative class action even after the defendant has extended that plaintiff an offer of judgment for the full individual relief sought in the complaint, including reasonable attorneys’ fees and costs. See Pitts v. Terrible Herbst, Inc., 653 F.3d 1081 (9th Cir. 2011). In a case that bears watching, a federal district judge in California recently certified for interlocutory review the question whether Pitts’s mootness holding remains good law. See Chen v. Allstate Ins. Co., No. 4:13-cv-00685-PJH (N.D. Cal. July 31, 2013).
Continue Reading Will the Ninth Circuit Revisit the Issue of Whether an Offer of Judgment to the Named Plaintiff Can Moot a Class Action?
Motions Practice
Failure to Allege Harm Narrows Data-Breach Suit
By John Nadolenco on
Posted in Class Action Trends, Motions Practice
When a company’s computer systems are raided by hackers, all too often it must brace itself for being victimized a second time by the class action bar. Plaintiffs frequently target such companies for class actions on behalf of the consumers whose data might have been exposed as a result of the potential data breach.
The…
Class Action Filing Doesn’t Toll Statute of Repose for Securities Claims, Says Second Circuit
By Joshua Yount on
Posted in Motions Practice, Securities
Under the American Pipe rule, in federal court the filing of a class action tolls the statute of limitations for would-be class members. Otherwise, the Supreme Court reasoned in American Pipe, putative class members would have to intervene or file their own individual actions during the pendency of the class action in case class…
Can Plaintiffs Gerrymander Mass Actions to Avoid Federal Jurisdiction?
By Archis A. Parasharami & Kevin Ranlett on
Posted in CAFA, Motions Practice
The Class Action Fairness Act of 2005 (“CAFA”) provides that defendants may remove certain mass actions—cases that are proposed to be tried jointly—so long as the aggregate amount at stake is at least $5 million and there are 100 or more plaintiffs in the case. 28 U.S.C. § 1332(d)(11). But what if plaintiffs’ counsel…
“Sure I Didn’t Buy It, But I’m Suing for False Advertising Anyway!”
By Dale J. Giali & 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…
Are State-Law Claims for Violating Federal Food Labeling Law Preempted?
By Dale J. Giali on
Posted in Class Action Trends, Motions Practice
The federal Food Drug and Cosmetic Act (“FDCA”)—along with the implementing regulations promulgated by the FDA—sets out a detailed national standard for much of what appears on food and beverage labeling. See 21 U.S.C. §§ 301, et seq.; 21 C.F.R. §§ 101, et seq.; Pom Wonderful LLC v. Coca-Cola Co., 679…
FCC Addresses Vicarious Liability Under Telephone Consumer Protection Act
By Kevin Ranlett & 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…
Third Circuit Rejects South Carolinan’s Effort To Bring Nationwide False Advertising Class Under New Jersey Law
By Donald Falk on
Posted in Class Action Trends, Motions Practice
The Ninth Circuit’s decision last year in Mazza v. American Honda Motor Co. [666 F.3d 581] (a case I argued) made it more difficult to sustain a nationwide class action under California consumer protection laws. Applying California “governmental interest” choice-of-law principles, the Mazza court held that the jurisdiction having the greatest interest in supplying the…
Do Plaintiffs Have Standing To Sue Over Alleged Reduction In The Value Of Their Personal Data?
By John Nadolenco on
Posted in Class Action Trends, Motions Practice
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…
Upcoming Teleconference on E-Discovery in Class Actions
By Kevin Ranlett on
Posted in Motions Practice
On May 2, at noon EST, my colleagues Anthony Diana (the co-chair of the firm’s E-Discovery and Records Management practice) and Therese Craparo (a counsel in that practice) and I will be presenting the first in a series of four teleconferences on e-discovery. This teleconference will focus on the unique challenges that class actions pose…