Sixth Circuit Holds Computer-Generated Log of Faxes Were Not Hearsay, But Were Properly Excluded for Lack of Authentication

In Lyngaas v. Curaden AG, No. 20-1199 (6th Cir. Mar. 24, 2021), a Telephone Consumer Protection Act (TCPA) class action, the court affirms the district court’s orders concerning the admissibility of a summary-report log that purportedly identified the class members who were called. The class action alleged that the defendants faxed unsolicited ads to thousandsContinue reading “Sixth Circuit Holds Computer-Generated Log of Faxes Were Not Hearsay, But Were Properly Excluded for Lack of Authentication”

District Court Erred by Imposing “Administrative Feasibility” Condition on Class Action, Holds Eleventh Circuit

In Cherry. v. Dometic Corp., No 19-13242 )11th Cir. Feb. 2, 2021), the Eleventh Circuit holds that Fed. R. Civ. P. 23 provides no basis to require a class plaintiff to establish administrative feasibility as a requirement of certification and remands the case for further development. “Dometic Corporation manufactures and sells gas-absorption refrigerators that areContinue reading “District Court Erred by Imposing “Administrative Feasibility” Condition on Class Action, Holds Eleventh Circuit”

Seventh Circuit Endorses 40-Person Rule of Thumb for Rule 23 Numerosity, Holds That 37 Was Too Few

In Anderson v. Weinert Enterprises Inc., No. 20-1030 (7th Cir. Jan. 28, 2021), the panel affirms denial of class certification under Fed. R. Civ. P. 23, where the proposed class fell below the 40-person threshold normally considered the standard for numerosity. The putative class was a state-law wage-and-hour case against a roofing company in northeastContinue reading “Seventh Circuit Endorses 40-Person Rule of Thumb for Rule 23 Numerosity, Holds That 37 Was Too Few”

Ninth Circuit Vacates Class-Settlement Fee Award Under Rule 23(h), Rejecting Lodestar-With-Multiplier Calculation in Case Where 96% of Value Is Coupons

In Chambers v. Whirlpool Corp., No. 16-56666 (9th Cir. Nov. 10, 2020), a Ninth Circuit panel affirms a class settlement, but remands the case for a recalculation of the attorney’s fees under Fed. R. Civ. P. 23(h). The panel finds that awarding the lawyers’ billable hours with a 1.69 multiplier – totaling $14.8 million –Continue reading “Ninth Circuit Vacates Class-Settlement Fee Award Under Rule 23(h), Rejecting Lodestar-With-Multiplier Calculation in Case Where 96% of Value Is Coupons”

Plaintiff Had Standing to Represent Customers Who Paid Automatic Gratuities at All 49 Hotel Locations in Florida, Holds Eleventh Circuit

In Fox v. The Ritz-Carlton Hotel Company, LLC, No. 19-10361 (11th Cir. Sept. 29, 2020), the Eleventh Circuit reverses dismissal of a putative class action, holding that the class representative – who ate at three Ritz-Carlton restaurants, and alleged violations of the Florida Deceptive and Unfair Trade Practices Act – could bring a claim onContinue reading “Plaintiff Had Standing to Represent Customers Who Paid Automatic Gratuities at All 49 Hotel Locations in Florida, Holds Eleventh Circuit”

Sixth Circuit Dashes the Concept of a Rule 23 “Negotiating” Class

In In re Nat’l Prescription Opiate Litig., No. 19-4097 (6th Cir. Sept. 24, 2020), a divided panel of the Sixth Circuit rebuffs a novel attempt to certify a Rule 23 class in a massive multi-district litigation (MDL) proceeding, solely for the purpose of giving the parties a vehicle for negotiating a global resolution. “The nationalContinue reading “Sixth Circuit Dashes the Concept of a Rule 23 “Negotiating” Class”

Eleventh Circuit Flatly Bans Incentive Payments to Rule 23 Class Representatives in Settlements

In a startling opinion, Johnson v. NPAS Solutions, LLC, No. 18-12344 (11th Cir. Sept. 17, 2020), a 2-1 panel announces that incentive payments of any kind to Rule 23 class representatives are incompatible with common-fund principles and are therefore banned. The panel vacates a $6000 incentive payment in a Telephone Consumer Protection Act class settlement.Continue reading “Eleventh Circuit Flatly Bans Incentive Payments to Rule 23 Class Representatives in Settlements”