Archives: Rule 23(b)(2) Class Actions

Subscribe to Rule 23(b)(2) Class Actions RSS Feed

Removal Evidence Need Not Be Perfect and Declaratory Relief Alone May Satisfy CAFA Amount-in-Controversy Requirement, says the Eleventh Circuit

Answering a question left undecided in other circuits, the Eleventh Circuit held in South Florida Wellness, Inc. v. Allstate Insurance Co., No. 14-10001 (Feb. 14, 2014) that a complaint seeking only declaratory relief “can be up to the task” of satisfying the Class Action Fairness Act’s $5 million amount-in-controversy requirement. In an alleged class action … Continue Reading

Individualized Causation and Reliance Defenses Render Class Representative Inadequate in the Northern District of Illinois

Class action defense practitioners routinely face uphill battles on the issue of individualized defenses for class members. However, these arguments should not be overlooked as tools to defeat class certification. Lipton v. Chattem, Inc., No. 11 C 2952, 2013 WL 489147 (N.D. Il. Feb. 8, 2013), a recent case out of the Northern District of … Continue Reading

California District Court Awaits Class Certification Motion in Wal-Mart

On December 10, 2012, the California District Court denied Wal-Mart’s motion for an interlocutory appeal in a putative class action filed in the wake of the Supreme Court’s decision not permitting certification of a nationwide class.  Dukes v. Wal-Mart, No. C01-02252 CRB, slip op. (N.D. Cal. Dec. 10, 2012).  In September, the district court had … Continue Reading

Wal-Mart Sex Discrimination Plaintiffs Get a Second Bite at a Smaller Apple

Last year, the Supreme Court ruled in Wal-Mart Stores Inc. v. Dukes, 131 S. Ct. 2541 (2011), that five named plaintiffs alleging nationwide sex discrimination class action claims did not satisfy Rule 23(a)’s commonality requirement and could not bring class claims for monetary relief under Rule 23(b)(2). In October of last year, the plaintiffs filed a … Continue Reading

Second Circuit: Notice Required When Damages Not “Incidental” in a Rule 23(b)(2) Class

Editors’ Note:  This article originally appeared as a “Client Alert” from Baker’s Class Action Defense team. Pointing out pitfalls in structuring enforceable class settlements, the Second Circuit Court of Appeals recently found that an absent class member’s claims were not barred by a prior settlement in a Rule 23(b)(2) class where monetary relief was not … Continue Reading
LexBlog