Breaking News

Will the Supreme Court invent a federal law to gut state consumer protection laws?

As mentioned in an earlier post on this blog, the U.S. Supreme Court will soon consider whether companies can ban class action lawsuits in the fine print of their contracts with consumers when it hears argument in AT&T Mobility v. Concepcion.  In its briefs, AT&T Mobility (“AT&T”) asks the Supreme Court to, in effect, create a federal law to gut state consumer protection laws. AT&T knows that there have been many times over the years where

Categories: Breaking News
Learn More »

U.S. Senator Goes on Record

U.S. Sen. Sheldon Whitehouse (D-R.I.), was quoted by Washington Post columnist E.J. Dionne saying the following: “Corporations hate juries.  It’s the one part of government you can’t buy.”

Categories: Breaking News
Learn More »

Wal-Mart asks US Supreme Court to Review Class Certification in Dukes v. Wal-Mart

As I suggested in a post on this blog in June, on August 25, 2010, Wal-Mart filed a petition asking the US Supreme Court to review the Ninth Circuit’s decision in Dukes v. Wal-Mart to allow that case to proceed as a class action.  The Ninth Circuit affirmed the trial court’s decision to certify a sex discrimination class action involving more than one million current and former female workers.

Categories: Breaking News, Employment Class Action
Learn More »

Pro-Corporate Interest U.S. Supreme Court to Consider Class Action Waivers

The U.S. Supreme Court will hear oral argument in November in AT&T Mobility v. Concepcion.  The court will consider the extent to which companies can ban class-action lawsuits in the fine print of their contracts with consumers and employees.  AT&T Mobility’s Wireless Service Agreement includes an arbitration clause, which requires any disputes to be submitted to arbitration, and a class action waiver clause, which requires any dispute to be brought in an individual capacity.  The district

Categories: Breaking News
Learn More »

US Supreme Court Limits Class Arbitrations

In a decision that may spark Congress to pass legislation limiting contractual arbitration provisions, the U.S. Supreme Court in Stolt-Nielsen S.A. v. AnimalFeeds International Corp.,130 S.Ct. 1758 (2010), held that “a party may not be compelled under the FAA to submit to class arbitration unless there is a contractual basis for concluding that the party agreed to do so.” In this case, AnimalFeeds brought antitrust class action claims against Stolt-Nielsen, and the parties agreed to submit the issue of class arbitration

Categories: Breaking News
Learn More »

US Supreme Court Supports Class Actions

The conventional wisdom is that the US Supreme Court is anti-class action.  However, recent case law suggests otherwise. A recent example is a proposed class action called Shady Grove Orthopedic Associates, P.A., Petitioner  v. Allstate Insurance Company, 130 S.Ct 1431 (2010).  In that case, the putative class representative, a medical care facility, alleged that Allstate had a routine practice of paying bills late and not paying interest.  Allstate countered by citing a New York state

Categories: Breaking News
Learn More »

Ninth Circuit Reaffirms the Standard of Review for Class Certification in Dukes v. Wal-Mart

In Betty Dukes v. Wal-Mart, Inc., 603 F.3d 571 (9th Cir. 2010), the Ninth Circuit affirmed the certification of a class of female Wal-Mart employees who alleged that Wal-Mart discriminated against them in compensation and promotions.  The Dukes decision is newsworthy because it is the largest gender discrimination class ever certified.  Because of this, and because commentators suggest that there are substantial differences among the circuits, it is likely that the US Supreme Court will grant certiorari. However, just because the class is large

Categories: Breaking News, Employment Class Action
Learn More »