In an important decision for investors, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled on March 20, 2018, that state courts can continue to hear certain securities class actions brought under federal law.
Stoll Berne recently obtained a final judgment in a long running class action case brought on behalf of children with autism against Providence Health Plan (“Providence”).
In a strongly worded decision, Judge Rakoff began his opinion by raising suspicion about whether the Federal Arbitration Act could properly be applied in today’s commercial context:
Warner/Chappell Music Inc. does not own a valid copyright on “Happy Birthday To You,” a California federal judge ruled Tuesday in a class action decision.
A Pennsylvania Supreme Court decision in mid-December upholding a nearly $188 million judgment against Wal-Mart Stores Inc. for denying breaks to its workers signals a split with federal courts over standards for bringing class actions, and could cause new claims to be pursued in the state court system.
We received an excellent ruling by the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals in the FedEx case. We have been representing the Oregon drivers in this class action for almost 10 years.
The U.S. Supreme Court issued its first class-action-related decision of the 2013-14 term. In Mississippi ex rel. Jim Hood v. AU Optronics Corp., Case No. 12-1036 (U.S. Jan. 14, 2014), the Court held that a parens patriae action brought by the Mississippi attorney general on behalf of Missouri citizens was not a “mass action” subject to the Class Action Fairness Act.
Paul Bland of Public Justice recently provided the following information about a decision under California Law:
In the movie “A Civil Action” John Travolta played a scrappy lawyer who risks his whole practice to bring a class action case against a chemical company that polluted the water and poisoned residents in a small Massachusetts town. The movie ends badly for both the lawyer and the company. Class actions are a vehicle through which individuals harmed by fraudulent conduct of companies and Wall Street firms can seek redress as a large group,
The Florida Supreme Court held oral argument in May in a case that could test the reach of the U.S. Supreme Court’s 2011 decision on class arbitration waivers in AT&T Mobility v. Concepcion. In McKenzie Check Advance of Florida v. Wendy Betts, SC11-514, the plaintiff relied on factual evidence in an attempt to prove that the lack of a class action device has made it impossible for her to obtain legal representation to pursue her
The United States Supreme Court granted certiorari today in Amgen Inc. v. Connecticut Retirement Plans and Trust Funds, No. 11-1085, to address the requirements for certifying a securities class action based on the “fraud-on-the-market” theory of reliance. The “fraud-on-the-market” theory involves allegations that public misrepresentations or omissions adversely affected the market price of a stock causing losses to an entire class of investors whether or not they individually relied on the information. The theory can
On June 20, 2011, the U.S. Supreme Court in Wal-Mart, Inc. v. Dukes reversed a class certification order in a class action lawsuit against Wal-Mart filed on behalf of current and former female employees of Wal-Mart. As reported earlier on this blog, the trial court had certified a class representing approximately 1.5 million female employees at Wal-Mart stores throughout the country. The workers sued the nation’s largest private employer for sex discrimination in Wal-Mart’s pay,
I recently posted the results of the Supreme Court opinion in AT&T v. Concepcion – the invalidation of a state law that rendered unenforceable the waiver of class action suits in arbitration. However, upon closer review of the opinion, the method utilized by the Supreme Court majority of five Republican nominated Justices is very troubling. Professing to simply follow the “text” of the Federal Arbitration Act (“FAA”), the opinion of the court written by Justice
On April 27, 2011, the U.S. Supreme Court issued its much-anticipated decision in AT&T Mobility LLC v. Concepcion, 563 U.S. __ (2011), in which the Court held that § 2 of the Federal Arbitration Act (“FAA”) preempts a certain California judicial rule (the so-called Discover Bank rule) relating to collective-action waivers in arbitration agreements. Justice Scalia authored the 5-4 majority opinion, and – not surprisingly – was joined by Justices Kennedy, Thomas, Alito, and Chief
CAFA substantially changed the class action landscape in 2005 by creating specialized jurisdiction in federal court for class action cases. The law amended 28 U.S.C. § 1332 to permit federal courts to hear class action cases of at least 100 members when the parties are minimally diverse and the aggregate damages exceed $5 million. In Cappuccitti v. DirecTV, Inc., the Eleventh Circuit held that the case before it, originally filed as a class action in
