Calif. Representative Actions May Need To Satisfy Rule 23

Law360, New York (March 12, 2014, 6:30 PM EDT) -- The U.S. Supreme Court has held that a federal procedural rule will trump an inconsistent state rule when a case is brought in federal court, regardless of its incidental effect upon state-created rights.[1] While this holding may appear simple at first blush, it has presented a challenge to federal courts adjudicating state-law claims within the confines of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure.

Federal courts faced with representative claims under California’s Private Attorney General Act ("PAGA"), for example, have struggled to determine whether such claims are...
To view the full article, register now.

UK Financial Services

UK Financial Services

Read Our Latest UK Financial Services Coverage

Financial Services Law360 UK provides breaking news and analysis on the financial sector. Coverage includes UK and European Union policy, enforcement, and litigation involving banks, asset management firms, and other financial services organizations.