Key Points -
The en banc 9th Circuit clarified numerous rules applicable to class actions brought under Rule 23(b)(3) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. The court’s watershed decision in Olean Wholesale Grocery v....more
- Universities across the country have shuttered their campuses and moved classes online in reaction to the novel coronavirus outbreak, but may be the targets of class actions from students as a result.
- Public and...more
• In Noel v. Thrifty Payless, Inc., the California Supreme Court clarified the scope of the ascertainability prerequisite to class certification. The Court held that proposed classes are ascertainable if defined by objective...more
These days, companies conducting background checks on job applicants have a lot to think about. Most companies are aware of the Fair Credit Reporting Act (FCRA) and FCRA’s various state analogs. FCRA, one of a number of...more
6/19/2019
/ Background Checks ,
Class Action ,
Consumer Reports ,
Corporate Counsel ,
Disclosure Requirements ,
Employer Liability Issues ,
Employment Application ,
Employment Litigation ,
Fair Credit Reporting Act (FCRA) ,
Hiring & Firing ,
Job Applicants
• En banc 9th Circuit affirmed a $210 million settlement in multidistrict litigation against Hyundai and Kia relating to their alleged misrepresentations about the fuel efficiency of their vehicles, reversing the decision of...more
• Central District of California Local Rule 23-3 requires plaintiffs to file a motion for class action certification within 90 days of service of the complaint.
• The 9th Circuit in ABS Entertainment overturned Local Rule...more
1/14/2019
/ Abuse of Discretion ,
Appeals ,
Bright-Line Rule ,
Class Action ,
Class Certification ,
Discovery ,
Filing Deadlines ,
FRCP 23 ,
Local Rules ,
Reversal ,
Summary Judgment
• The D.C. Circuit reviewed a 2015 FCC order that interpreted the TCPA’s prohibition against using automated dialing devices to make unsolicited calls to cellular telephones. The court set aside two portions of the 2015 Order...more
3/21/2018
/ Appeals ,
Arbitrary and Capricious ,
Automated Systems ,
Cell Phones ,
Class Action ,
Consent ,
FCC ,
Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act (HIPAA) ,
Opt-Outs ,
Reassigned Phone Numbers ,
Revocation ,
Robocalling ,
Safe Harbors ,
TCPA ,
Telecommunications
• The DOJ has streamlined its process for reviewing CAFA settlement notices.
• The DOJ will likely become more aggressive in reviewing class action settlements for fairness, reasonableness and conformity with DOJ policy...more
• A judge in the Northern District of Illinois held that the U.S. Supreme Court’s decision in Bristol-Myers Squibb Co. v. Superior Court of California, 137 S. Ct. 1773 (2017) is applicable to personal jurisdiction...more
• The 9th Circuit affirmed the dismissal of a putative class action alleging that ESPN disclosed “personally identifiable information” in violation of the Video Privacy Protection Act of 1988 (VPPA) by knowingly disclosing to...more