We use cookies on this site to enable your digital experience. By continuing to use this site, you are agreeing to our cookie policy. close

Class Action

  • September 19, 2018

    Court Should Decide Class Arbitrability Questions: 11th Circ.

    The Eleventh Circuit ruled Wednesday that class arbitrability should be decided by a court if an arbitration clause is silent on the issue, but sent a dispute over class arbitrability between consumers and prison contractor JPay Inc. to an arbitrator after determining that the terms of service agreement clearly states that was the parties' preference.

  • September 19, 2018

    Pension Fund Fights Ocwen Bid To Tank ERISA Mortgage Row

    A company accused of profiting by pushing homeowners into foreclosure after the housing bubble burst should have to face claims that its alleged actions violated the Employee Retirement Income Security Act, and companies that helped or watched should too, a pension fund told a New York federal judge Wednesday.

  • September 19, 2018

    UnitedHealthcare Can't Take Back Cephalon Antitrust Deal

    A Pennsylvania federal judge has found that UnitedHealthcare Services Inc. is bound by a $125 million antitrust settlement its outside counsel reached with Cephalon Inc., as the insurer had given every indication that its lawyers were in the clear to sign on its behalf and in-house counsel actively chose not to read or challenge the final agreement.

  • September 19, 2018

    Inovalon Investor Class Certified In Suit Over IPO

    A New York federal court on Tuesday granted certification to a class of Inovalon Holdings Inc. investors that allege the technology company filed a prospectus ahead of its initial public offering that misled investors regarding the company's revenue stream, while also dismissing some claims on the grounds that the shares were not purchased during the offering.

  • September 19, 2018

    Investors Say Co. Faked HQ, Seek Cert. In Stock-Drop Suit

    Investors who accuse Wins Finance Holdings Inc. of lying its way onto a major stock index have asked a California federal court to certify them as a class, saying the investment firm’s misrepresentations over having a New York headquarters cost them dearly.

  • September 19, 2018

    Duke Univ. Workers Say 401(k) Plan Was Revamped After Suit

    Workers suing Duke University gave a North Carolina federal judge a “road map” of their class claims that the school mismanaged their retirement savings and refused to correct an unreasonable record-keeping arrangement until it was sued, telling the judge Tuesday that Duke is reworking the plan for 2019.

  • September 19, 2018

    Player Balks At NCAA's Confidentiality Bid In Wage Suit

    A former Villanova University football player said Wednesday the school and the NCAA are trying to force him to agree to a blanket confidentiality agreement to keep nonpublic documents set to be handed over as part of his lawsuit alleging college players must be paid minimum wage out of the hands of the press. 

  • September 19, 2018

    Progressive Must Face Most Of Drivers' Car Value Claims

    A California federal judge denied most of Progressive Casualty Insurance Co.'s motion to dismiss a driver's putative class action alleging it unfairly undervalued vehicles declared totaled, finding Wednesday that the driver's claims under the Unfair Competition Act are viable.

  • September 19, 2018

    Some Claims In BP Deepwater Suits Time-Barred, Judge Says

    A Texas federal judge on Tuesday dismissed some claims against BP PLC from more than a dozen of the investor suits in multidistrict litigation related to the 2010 Deepwater Horizon spill, finding that a 2017 U.S. Supreme Court ruling clarified that certain claims based on company statements from before the spill are time-barred.

  • September 19, 2018

    Pfizer Unit, Teva Must Face Effexor Antitrust Litigation

    Pfizer Inc. unit Wyeth and Teva Pharmaceuticals have fallen short in their bid to ax a proposed class action from end-payors alleging the companies engaged in a scheme to delay generic competition for antidepressant drug Effexor XR, with a New Jersey federal judge refusing to toss the case in its entirety.

  • September 19, 2018

    Bally's Casino Dealers Push To Revive OT Wage Settlement

    A class of Bally’s Atlantic City card table dealers asked a New Jersey federal magistrate judge Wednesday to reopen a wage-and-hour action alleging employees weren't paid for attending pre-shift staff meetings, saying casino owner Caesars Entertainment Corp.'s emergence from bankruptcy can allow a $500,000 settlement to move forward.

  • September 19, 2018

    Drivers Reach $44.8M Deal With Toyoda Gosei In Parts MDL

    Toyoda Gosei has agreed to pay $44.8 million to end claims in multidistrict litigation it was part of a conspiracy to fix the prices of six types of auto parts, drivers told a Michigan federal judge Tuesday in their bid for initial approval of the class action settlement.

  • September 19, 2018

    Towing Co. Fees Exceeded Pittsburgh Limits, Suit Says

    A Pittsburgh towing company violated city rules and Pennsylvania’s consumer protection laws by charging more than allowed when towing unattended vehicles from private parking lots, and Home Depot knew the company was questionable but contracted with it anyway, according to a proposed class action lawsuit filed in state court on Tuesday.

  • September 19, 2018

    Allergan Loses 'Meritless' Bid To Gut Restasis Antitrust MDL

    A New York federal judge has shot down Allergan Inc.’s “meritless” effort to eviscerate multidistrict litigation that alleges antitrust violations aimed at protecting dry-eye drug Restasis, saying it’s plausible that the company acted dishonestly to stymie generic competition.

  • September 19, 2018

    Becton Can't Avoid Medical Supplies Antitrust Suit, Court Told

    A proposed class of health care providers struck back Tuesday at Becton Dickinson & Co.’s bid to escape their suit accusing the medical supply manufacturer of suppressing competition in the market, saying the providers don’t have to be direct purchasers to bring antitrust claims.

  • September 19, 2018

    Calif. IPhone Users Win Cert. In 'Broken' FaceTime Suit

    A California federal judge Tuesday certified a class of California consumers claiming that Apple Inc. “broke” its FaceTime service on iPhones using older operating systems, but declined to certify a nationwide class because the laws in question differ from state to state.

  • September 19, 2018

    GrubHub Slams Driver's Bid For 'Gig Economy' Ruling Redo

    GrubHub Inc. on Tuesday slammed a former driver's attempt to persuade a California federal court to reconsider its finding that he was an independent contractor rather than an employee, saying he can't use the California Supreme Court's Dynamex ruling to thwart his ongoing Ninth Circuit appeal.

  • September 19, 2018

    Insurer Says Hotel Can't Prove Alleged Conspiracy's Impact

    Attorneys for insurer Highmark Inc. argued Wednesday that a Pennsylvania federal judge should deny certification to a proposed class action because an expert witness for a Pittsburgh-area hotel chain didn't show her methods for linking higher health care premiums to an alleged "truce" between Highmark and a rival.

  • September 19, 2018

    Under Armour Ducks Investors' Stock Price Manipulation Suit

    A Maryland federal judge on Wednesday dismissed all claims against Under Armour and its underwriters in a consolidated action alleging the sports apparel company deliberately misled investors to inflate its stock price, ruling that a pension fund's claims under the Securities Act were time-barred and that another fund failed to state claims under the Exchange Act.

  • September 19, 2018

    Chevy Drivers Aren't Victims In Emissions Suit, Bosch Says

    A proposed class action against General Motors and electronics engineering firm Robert Bosch LLC alleging the two conspired to design auto systems that eluded emissions test standards fails because it never establishes the consumer as a victim, according to Bosch’s reply brief in support of a motion to dismiss the case.

Expert Analysis

  • Q&A

    Back To School: Stanford's Jeff Fisher Talks Supreme Court

    Jeffrey Fisher

    In this series featuring law school luminaries, Stanford Law School professor Jeffrey Fisher discusses his motivation for teaching, arguing before the U.S. Supreme Court and what the court might look like if Judge Brett Kavanaugh is confirmed.

  • Genetic Data Holds Opportunities And Risks For Litigants

    Kirk Hartley

    A recently published research paper concludes that a significant proportion of patients with malignant mesotheliomas carry inherited mutations in cancer-associated genes. Well-informed lawyers on both sides of the aisle can effectively use such data to materially alter the outcome of cases, say Kirk Hartley and David Schwartz of ToxicoGenomica.

  • Opinion

    Orexigen Decision At Odds With High Court Jurisprudence

    Douglas Greene

    The Ninth Circuit's decision last month in Khoja v. Orexigen Therapeutics — placing constraints on the record a court may consider in deciding falsity and scienter under the securities laws — countermands the U.S. Supreme Court’s direction to courts in Omnicare and Tellabs, say attorneys with BakerHostetler.

  • Calif.'s New Rules For Lawyers Move Closer To ABA Model

    Mark Loeterman

    The first comprehensive overhaul of California's Rules of Professional Conduct in nearly 30 years becomes operational on Nov. 1. Some of the new rules mirror the model language used by the American Bar Association, but many continue to reflect California’s unique approach to certain ethical questions, says Mark Loeterman of Signature Resolution LLC.

  • Know The Limits To Atty Public Statements During A Trial

    Matthew Giardina

    The balancing act between protecting attorneys’ speech rights and ensuring unbiased adjudications was highlighted recently in two cases — when Michael Cohen applied for a restraining order against Stephanie Clifford's attorney, and when Johnson & Johnson questioned whether a Missouri talc verdict was tainted by public statements from the plaintiffs' counsel, says Matthew Giardina of Manning Gross & Massenburg LLP.

  • In Calif., Questions Remain On Law Firm Conflict Waivers

    Richard Rosensweig

    In Sheppard Mullin v. J-M Manufacturing Co., the California Supreme Court ruled last month that a law firm's failure to disclose a known conflict with another current client did not categorically disentitle the firm from recovering fees. But the court didn’t provide hoped-for guidance on how to write an enforceable advance conflict waiver, says Richard Rosensweig of Goulston & Storrs PC.

  • Q&A

    A Chat With Faegre Client Development Chief Melanie Green

    Melanie Green

    In this monthly series, Amanda Brady of Major Lindsey & Africa interviews management from top law firms about the increasingly competitive business environment. Here we feature Melanie Green, chief client development officer at Faegre Baker Daniels LLP.

  • Setting A Framework For Disgorgement Insurance Disputes

    Catherine Doyle

    In TIAA-CREF Insurance Appeals, the Delaware Supreme Court struck a blow to insurers seeking to avoid responsibility for settlement payments made by policyholders. Though decided under New York law, this opinion opens the door to a fact-specific analysis that may help policyholders facing similar denials, say Catherine Doyle and Jan Larson of Jenner & Block LLP.

  • To Stay Or Not To Stay: Considering The '5-Year Rule'

    Karin Bohmholdt

    In Martinez v. Landry Restaurants, a California state appeals court recently held that the time period during which a federal appeal from an order remanding a case to state court is pending should be included when calculating the “five-year rule” for bringing a case to trial. This shows that all counsel should consider whether to seek a stay of proceedings where the case crosses jurisdictional boundaries, says Karin Bohmholdt of Greenberg Traurig LLP.

  • Opinion

    Court Doubles Down On Incorrect Right Of Publicity Ruling

    Ronald Katz

    A California federal court's refusal last week to reconsider Davis v. Electronic Arts magnifies the manifest errors in its recent decision by ignoring the blatantly obvious identifiability of the former NFL players, says Ronald Katz of GCA Law Partners LLP.