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””

The Stealthy Traffic Camera and the Class Action That Wasn’t

Author: Jeremy Gilman (former Partner at Benesch Law)

Mobile speed units.  Those mindless menaces squinting at everything that rolls down the road.  Most drivers approach them with caution, but others, either oblivious to their presence or bent on one-upping the machine, speed by, only to have their stomachs sink when a ticket arrives in the mail. Continue reading “The Stealthy Traffic Camera and the Class Action That Wasn’t”

Plaintiffs’ Securities Claims Denied Class Treatment for Failure to Satisfy Predominance Requirement

On May 15, 2017, the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York denied class treatment to a proposed class action alleging violations of Section 10(b) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934.  In its opinion, the district court held that the plaintiffs failed to satisfy Rule 23(b)(3)’s predominance requirement because their “omission” claims were actually alleged misrepresentations not subject to a presumption of class-wide reliance. Continue reading “Plaintiffs’ Securities Claims Denied Class Treatment for Failure to Satisfy Predominance Requirement”

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””

Federal Circuit Court of Appeals Puts the Class in Class Actions

Author: Jeremy Gilman (former Partner at Benesch Law)

The Federal Circuit Court of Appeals is best known for adjudicating patent disputes.  But that’s not the extent of its portfolio.  It also has exclusive appellate jurisdiction over decisions of the United States Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims, which, in turn, reviews decisions of the Board of Veterans’ Appeals.  Those tribunals adjudicate benefits claims by military veterans. Continue reading “Federal Circuit Court of Appeals Puts the Class in Class Actions”

Sixth Circuit Rules that the Class Action Fairness Act Means What it Says

Author: Jeremy Gilman (former Partner at Benesch Law)

A statute, distilled to its essence, is thought conveyed through words.  And when those words are understandable and coherently arranged, there’s nothing for courts to do when adjudicating disputes involving them, other than to apply them as written.

Simple, isn’t it?

In theory, yes.  But theories don’t wear judge’s robes. Continue reading “Sixth Circuit Rules that the Class Action Fairness Act Means What it Says”