Supreme Court Intensifies Timing Pressure on Federal Securities Claimants

Author: Jeremy Gilman (former Partner at Benesch Law)

It is not uncommon for unnamed class members to opt out of the class when securities class actions veer toward settlement.  They might deem the proposed settlement inadequate, and would prefer at that point to go it alone, perhaps believing they can elicit a better deal.  Continue reading “Supreme Court Intensifies Timing Pressure on Federal Securities Claimants”

Supreme Court Tightens Personal Jurisdiction Requirements

Author: Jeremy Gilman (former Partner at Benesch Law)

Determining whether a nonresident defendant is subject to a forum state’s jurisdiction became clearer on June 19, 2017, when the United States Supreme Court announced its decision in Bristol-Myers Squibb Co. v. Superior Court of California, San Francisco County, 582 U.S. ____ (2017), case no. 16-466. Continue reading “Supreme Court Tightens Personal Jurisdiction Requirements”

The Case Goes On, For Now: Seventh Circuit Holds Rule 67 Cannot Moot TCPA Class Action

By: David S. Almeida and Mark S. Eisen

In January 2016, the Supreme Court issued its Campbell-Ewald v. Gomez decision and definitely ruled that Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 68 could not be used to moot the claims of a named plaintiff.  Prior to that ruling, courts across the country were split as to whether a defendant could make a complete offer of judgment pursuant to Rule 68—offering to pay all, and sometimes more than, the relief a plaintiff would be entitled to if they won at trial—and thus deprive the plaintiff of standing to continue litigating the case.  In other words, courts were split as to whether a plaintiff could keep litigating after they had already won (following an “unconditional surrender” by the defendant). Continue reading “The Case Goes On, For Now: Seventh Circuit Holds Rule 67 Cannot Moot TCPA Class Action”

Supreme Court Swats Down the “Voluntary-Dismissal Tactic”

Author: Jeremy Gilman (former Partner at Benesch Law)

Let’s say you’re a plaintiff in a federal action and you’re seeking class certification.  The district court denies your motion.  You then seek the court of appeals’ permission to appeal that interlocutory order under Rule 23(f) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, but that court says no.  What to do? Continue reading “Supreme Court Swats Down the “Voluntary-Dismissal Tactic””

Supreme Court Reinforces the Primacy of the Federal Arbitration Act, Even Over a “Divine God-Given Right”

Author: Jeremy Gilman (former Partner at Benesch Law)

Kentucky law speaks of the right to jury trial in theological terms.  The Kentucky Constitution provides that “[t]he ancient mode of trial by jury shall be held sacred, and the right thereof remain inviolate, subject to such modifications as may be authorized by this Constitution.”  Expounding on that, the Kentucky Supreme Court noted in an opinion that “the drafters of our Constitution deemed the right to a jury trial to be inviolate, a right that cannot be taken away; and, indeed, a right that is sacred, thus denoting that right and that right alone as a divine God-given right.”  And no, that opinion did not issue in 1815; it issued 200 years later.  Continue reading “Supreme Court Reinforces the Primacy of the Federal Arbitration Act, Even Over a “Divine God-Given Right””

Supreme Court to Address Class Action Waivers Amid Circuit Split

On January 13, 2017, the United States Supreme Court granted review to address the legality of class action waivers in arbitration agreements among employers and employees.  The case, NLRB v. Murphy Oil USA, Inc., U.S., No. 16-307, comes after the Fifth Circuit’s rejection of the NLRB’s position that class action waivers in arbitration agreements are unlawful. Continue reading “Supreme Court to Address Class Action Waivers Amid Circuit Split”

Football, Apple Pie and Class Actions Redux

Author: Jeremy Gilman (former Partner at Benesch Law)

On December 12, 2016, the U.S. Supreme Court denied certiorari in Gilchrist v. National Football League, case no. 16-283 and Armstrong v. National Football League.  For my prior post on these cases, see https://beneschclassactionblog.com/2016/11/28/as-american-as-football-apple-pie-and-class-actions/.  And please pass the bean dip.

As American as Football, Apple Pie and Class Actions

Author: Jeremy Gilman (former Partner at Benesch Law)

Two cert petitions in a football-related class action are pending before the U.S. Supreme Court: Gilchrist v. National Football League, case no. 16-283 and Armstrong v. National Football League.  Both are scheduled to be considered by the Court at its December 9, 2016 conference.  Continue reading “As American as Football, Apple Pie and Class Actions”

Plus Feature: How Not to Win at the U.S. Supreme Court

Author: Jeremy Gilman (former Partner at Benesch Law)

Think ATMs; particularly, those not operated by banks.  Several non-bank ATM operators and their customers filed class action complaints against Visa, MasterCard and various affiliated banks in D.C. federal court alleging that defendants violated antitrust laws by requiring the non-bank ATM operators to adhere to certain “Access Fee Rules” that prevented them from offering discounted access fees to their customers, which, in turn, diminished their profitability.  The district court dismissed the complaints for lack of standing and failure to state a claim, but the court of appeals vacated and remanded, holding that the lower court “erred in concluding that the Plaintiffs had failed to plead adequate facts to establish standing or the existence of a horizontal conspiracy to restrain trade.”  Osborn v. Visa Inc., 797 F. 3d 1057 (D.C. Cir. 2015).
Continue reading “Plus Feature: How Not to Win at the U.S. Supreme Court”

Coming Up This Term from SCOTUS

Author: Jeremy Gilman (former Partner at Benesch Law)

One class action-related case, so far:  Microsoft v. Baker, case no. 15-457, on certiorari from the Ninth Circuit.  The issue:  “Whether a federal court of appeals has jurisdiction under both Article III and 28 U.S.C. § 1291 to review an order denying class certification after the named plaintiffs voluntarily dismiss their individual claims with prejudice.” Continue reading “Coming Up This Term from SCOTUS”