A New Jersey District Court followed Spokeo’s Article III standing analysis and dismissed claims by three putative class representatives against Michaels Stores. Plaintiffs claimed that Michaels’ online employment application...more
2/14/2017
/ Article III ,
Background Checks ,
Class Action ,
Corporate Counsel ,
Disclosure Requirements ,
Fair Credit Reporting Act (FCRA) ,
Hiring & Firing ,
Injury-in-Fact ,
Job Applicants ,
Michaels ,
Putative Class Actions ,
Screening Procedures ,
Spokeo v Robins ,
Standing
The Northern District of California dismissed a Fair Credit Reporting Act case against Lyft upon finding that plaintiff lacked Article III standing based on the Supreme Court’s decision in Spokeo, Inc. v. Robins, 136 S. Ct....more
11/4/2016
/ Article III ,
Background Checks ,
Class Action ,
Credit Reports ,
Fair Credit Reporting Act (FCRA) ,
Hiring & Firing ,
Injury-in-Fact ,
Job Applicants ,
Lyft ,
Putative Class Actions ,
Sharing Economy ,
Spokeo v Robins ,
Standing
Food for Thought is a review of significant court decisions affecting the food, beverage, dietary supplements and personal care products industry. Although many cases in this edition focus on class certification, others...more
2/15/2016
/ Ascertainable Class ,
CAFA ,
Chobani Inc ,
Class Action ,
Class Certification ,
ConAgra ,
Dietary Supplements ,
Federal Food Drug and Cosmetic Act (FFDCA) ,
Food Contamination ,
Food Labeling ,
Food Manufacturers ,
FRCP 23(b)(3) ,
Natural Products ,
Ocean Spray ,
Organic ,
Preemption ,
Standing
Before class certification hearings occur in the Southern District of Florida, defendants may not challenge plaintiff’s class allegations via Rule 12(f) motions to strike but may challenge plaintiff’s standing via motions to...more