For over forty years it has been well-known that the filing of a class action tolls the statute of limitations for all members of the putative class. This doctrine stemmed from the United States Supreme Court’s decision in American Pipe & Construction Co. v. Utah. The rationale of American Pipe decision was to prevent a multitude of filings, effectively defeating the ostensible efficiencies gained by a class action in the first place. If there were no tolling, then plaintiffs would have to file prophylactically in case the class action did not pan out for whatever reason. Continue reading “Can’t We All Just Tag-Along? The Supreme Court Shuts Down Untimely Class Actions”
Author: Mark S. Eisen
Following the FCC’s 2015 Telephone Consumer Protection Act Omnibus Order, following ten consolidated appeals of the Order filed shortly thereafter, and following an oral argument in 2016, on March 16, 2018 the DC Circuit issued its long-awaited opinion dismantling the Order. Unfortunately, the DC Circuit did not do much more than tell the FCC that many of its rulings were arbitrary and capricious—in other words, the Court did not itself provide definitive interpretations. Now, three years later, plaintiffs and defendants alike find themselves with infinitely more questions than answers, and with a long road to hoe back before the FCC. Continue reading “ATDS, WTF? The DC Circuit Dismantles the FCC’s 2015 TCPA Order”
It is no secret that there are certain jurisdictions that plaintiffs’ class action attorneys prefer to file suit, most notably, Chicago, Los Angeles, Miami and New York, to name a few. While plaintiffs’ lawyers may have countless clients in those jurisdictions, rarely is the defendant they are pursuing physically resident in those jurisdictions. In order to satisfy the personal jurisdiction requirements then, plaintiffs’ lawyers thus have to rely on specific jurisdiction—jurisdiction that arises out of the defendant’s suit-related contacts with the forum—not general jurisdiction—jurisdiction that exists (with limited exception) only in those forums where the defendant is incorporated or headquartered. Continue reading “This Time, It’s Personal: TCPA Personal Jurisdiction Ruling Severely Limits Nationwide Class Actions”
On February 21, 2018, the Second Circuit Court of Appeals affirmed a lower court’s grant of summary judgment in a TCPA defendant’s favor, holding that the TCPA plaintiff provided prior express consent for a “health care” message, precluding liability. In its decision, the Second Circuit confirmed that under the TCPA, a defendant need not obtain written prior express consent to send a health care message. Continue reading “Second Circuit Confirms Prior Express Consent For “Health Care” Messages Need Not Be In Writing Under TCPA”
On February 1, 2018, a federal district court in the Northern District of California stayed a putative class action involving the Tezos Initial Coin Offering (“ICO”) pending the United States Supreme Court’s decision in a case addressing state court jurisdiction over securities class actions. In granting the defendant’s request for a stay, the court refrained from deciding the novel securities and jurisdictional issue of whether ICOs are securities offerings subject to the Securities Act of 1933. Continue reading “District Court Stays Securities Class Action Involving Initial Coin Offering Pending Supreme Court Review”
Brought about by an obscure state law passed nearly a decade ago—the Illinois Biometric Information Protection Act (740 ILCS 14/1)—the next wave of privacy class action litigation is here and in full-swing. While an Illinois law, the BIPA is appearing in cases nationwide regarding the collection, storage and use of biometric information. The BIPA, in short, regulates the collection and use of biometric information (i.e., iris scans, fingerprints, voiceprints and facial geometry). The BIPA was enacted in 2008, and flew largely under the radar until an initial trickling of class actions, beginning with the first class action filed against Facebook in 2015, and followed shortly thereafter by lawsuits against Google, Shutterfly and Snapchat. Continue reading “Biometrics: The Wave of the Future Sparks a Current Wave of Class Action Litigation”
Benesch has been ranked in the top 20% of all law firms by corporate counsel for Class Actions in BTI Litigation Outlook 2018. Each year BTI reaches out to a strategically designed group of top legal decision makers at large organizations with $1 billion or more in revenue.
BTI Litigation Outlook 2018 is based solely on in-depth telephone interviews with leading legal decision makers. This comprehensive analysis trends data from more than 4,800 corporate counsel client interviews conducted over the span of 18 years.
Authors: David Almeida and Mark Eisen
Published in Law360
In 2006, the Federal Communications Commission enacted the so-called solicited fax rule under the Telephone Consumer Protection Act. This rule required certain byzantine language to appear at the bottom of every single fax advertisement informing recipients how to opt out of receiving future faxes, even if those faxes were requested (i.e., solicited) by the recipients. What is more, violations of this regulation are punishable by between $500 and $1,500 per fax in statutory damages.
View the full article here.
Author: Jeremy Gilman (former Partner at Benesch Law)
There’s something uniquely interesting about judicial opinions involving class action attorneys’ fees. For class counsel, it’s the culmination of years of work. They researched the claim, brought the case, slogged through discovery, endured motion practice, battled through class certification, lost sleep, sacrificed weekends and holidays, and waited. If they prevailed on class certification, they high fived each other and pressed forward, preparing for a trial that might never occur, because the case may settle. And if it does settle, class counsel can get paid for it all. Continue reading “Eight-Figure Class Action Attorney Fee Award Dissolves in the Court of Appeals”