In Frego v. Settlement Class Counsel, No. 20-30596 (5th Cir. Oct. 27, 2021), the panel sidesteps an “odd” question of who the proper appellee might be in a “closed” fund class settlement, holding instead that the plaintiff-appellants waived the right to appeal the award under the class settlement. “After ten years of litigation, a classContinue reading “Class Waiver of Appeals from Award Determinations Enforced by Fifth Circuit, Sidestepping the Issue of Who the Proper Appellee Might Be”
Tag Archives: Class Action
“Home State” Exception to Class Action Fairness Act Jurisdiction Does Not Apply Where the “Primary Thrust” of the Case Is Liability Against an Out-of-State Defendant, Fifth Circuit Holds
In Madison v. ADT LLC, No. 21-90028 (5th Cir. Aug. 24, 2021), the panel holds that the district court should have disregarded the nominal in-state defendant when evaluating the “home state” exception to the Class Action Fairness Act (CAFA), 28 U.S.C. § 1332(d)(4)(B). It holds that primary defendants include those at whom a lawsuit isContinue reading ““Home State” Exception to Class Action Fairness Act Jurisdiction Does Not Apply Where the “Primary Thrust” of the Case Is Liability Against an Out-of-State Defendant, Fifth Circuit Holds”
No Interlocutory Appeal of Interim Fee Award Paid Directly by Defendant, Holds Ninth Circuit
In AdTrader Inc. v. Google LLC, No. 20-15542 (9th Cir. July 30, 2021), the Ninth Circuit holds that an interim award of fees in a class action that is paid by the defendant, rather than through a common fund, is not subject to an interlocutory appeal. Google LLC runs advertising platforms for digital ads, andContinue reading “No Interlocutory Appeal of Interim Fee Award Paid Directly by Defendant, Holds Ninth Circuit”
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”
Paul Mollica's Federal Courts Blog 