Tag Archives: supreme court

Concrete and Particularized Part II: What Spokeo May Mean for Class Actions

This blog post is the second in a series of posts that Baker & Hostetler LLP is devoting to the significant decision Robins v. Spokeo, No. 13-1339, 537 U.S. ___ (2016) (Spokeo). Monday’s post focused on Spokeo’s effect on privacy class actions and big data. Today’s post focuses on the decision’s impact on class actions. … Continue Reading

Supreme Court Nixes Defendants’ Attempts to Get Rid of Class Actions by Making “Pickoff” Offers to Settle Named Plaintiffs’ Individual Claims

Editor’s Note: Originally published by the Columbus Chamber of Commerce, this article appeared on their website March 10 2016. It is republished to BakerHostetler’s Class Action Lawsuit Defense blog with their permission. The Supreme Court recently held that a defendant cannot get rid of a class action by merely offering to settle with the named plaintiff on … Continue Reading

BakerHostetler Antitrust Lawyer Examines Recent Development in Antitrust Class Action Litigation

The Antitrust Review of the Americas 2015 features a chapter by BakerHostetler antitrust partner Edmund W. Searby entitled, “United States: Private Antitrust Litigation – Class Actions.”  He wrote: “As many appreciate, two Supreme Court decisions in the last seven years have assisted the defense of antitrust class actions.  The first and most significant is the enhancement … Continue Reading

Basic Is Dying a Slow Death: The Supreme Court Upholds the Fraud-on-the-Market Presumption in Halliburton but Allows Rebuttal

Given the opportunity to overrule its landmark 1988 decision in Basic v. Levinson, in which it created the fraud-on-the-market presumption, the Supreme Court declined. The Court found in its decision this week in Halliburton that, while it was not ready to dismiss the presumption altogether, it would allow defendants to offer rebuttal evidence at the … Continue Reading

SCOTUS: Mississippi AG Suit is not a Removable CAFA Mass Action

In Mississippi ex rel. Jim Hood v. AU Optronics Corp., Case No. 12-1036 (U.S. Jan. 14, 2014), the United States Supreme Court reversed the Fifth Circuit’s decision and held that a statewide antitrust lawsuit brought by the state attorney general seeking restitution for its citizens is not a CAFA mass action and is therefore not … Continue Reading

Clapper and Data Breach Litigation

In Clapper v. Amnesty International USA,  133 S. Ct. 1138 (2013), the Supreme Court recently held that individuals claiming injury from the federal government’s right to conduct electronic surveillance under the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA),  50 U.S.C. § 1881a, lacked standing to pursue their claims.  In reaching its holding, the Court made statements that should … Continue Reading

Common and Predominating Damages: Comcast Opinion Extends Wal-Mart v. Dukes’ Standards for Class Certification but Leaves the Question of Daubert for Another Day

Co-authored by: John B. Lewis, Dustin M. Dow, Patrick T. Lewis, Danyll W. Foix, and Rodger L. Eckelberry Editor’s Note: This Executive Alert was published by members of BakerHostetler’s Securities Litigation and Regulatory Enforcement Team, Employment Team, and BakerHostetler’s Class Action Team. On March 27, 2013, the U.S. Supreme Court decided Comcast Corp. v. Behrend, Case … Continue Reading

Comcast v. Behrend: Supreme Court Tightens Certification Requirements, But Leaves Standard For Expert Evidence Uncertain

On March 27, 2013, the U.S. Supreme Court decided Comcast Corp. v. Behrend, Case No. 11-864, which tightened class certification requirements in two respects.  First, Behrend requires plaintiffs to show a method by which class-wide damages can be commonly calculated in Rule 23(b)(3) antitrust class actions.  Second, the decision confirmed that the Court’s “rigorous analysis” … Continue Reading

Supreme Court Hears AMEX Class Arbitration Case

Editors’ Note: This post was originally published at rennerclassactions.com, and is reprinted with permission. The Supreme Court recently heard argument in American Express Co. v. Italian Colors Restaurant, No. 12-133.  The case stems from the Second Circuit’s February 1, 2012 decision that American Express (“AMEX”) could not compel a putative class of merchants to arbitrate their … Continue Reading

A Big Week for the Securities Bar: Amgen and Gabelli

Co-authored by: Marc D. Powers, Mark A. Kornfeld, and Jessie M Gabriel Editor’s Note: This Executive Alert was published by members of BakerHostetler’s Securities Litigation and Regulatory Enforcement Team and BakerHostetler’s Class Action Team. The Supreme Court last week issued two opinions of major importance to the securities bar. In Amgen Inc. v. Connecticut Retirement … Continue Reading

Materiality Can Wait, Says the Supreme Court in Amgen

The following post is reprinted with permission from Paul Karlsgodt’s blog, www.classactionblawg.com.  Stay tuned over the coming days for more in-depth analysis of the Amgen decision and its potential implications for securities class actions and class actions more generally. The Supreme Court has issued its opinion in one of the most highly anticipated class action-related cases on … Continue Reading

U.S. Supreme Court To Review Fifth Circuit’s SLUSA Decision in Stanford Ponzi Scheme Case

Co-author: Frank Oliva The Supreme Court recently granted certiorari to examine the “in connection with” requirement of the Securities Litigation Uniform Standards Act (“SLUSA”) in Chadbourne & Parke LLP v. Troice, No. 12-79.  SLUSA generally precludes state law securities class actions when there is a misrepresentation or omission “in connection with the purchase or sale … Continue Reading

Supreme Court Declines to Take on the Issue of Issue Certification

A definitive ruling on whether courts may certify class actions to decide discrete issues, as opposed to cases or claims, will have to wait.  Last Monday, the United States Supreme Court denied a writ of certiorari to review the Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals’ ruling in McReynolds v. Merrill Lynch, Pierce, Fenner & Smith, Inc., 672 F.3d 482 … 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

Future of International Class Actions in the U.S. Courts May Be at Stake in Upcoming Supreme Court Case

Editor’s Note – This article was co-authored by Tina Amin and Paul Karlsgodt in the firm’s Denver office Today is Talk Like a Pirate Day, which is always a reminder of the Alien Tort statute (“ATS”), an arcane law that was originally enacted in 1789 in part to combat piracy.  In recent years, the ATS … Continue Reading

The Stakes are High as Supreme Court Considers Evidentiary Standards for Expert Testimony on Class Certification

The Supreme Court is set to hear oral argument in the case of Comcast v. Behrend this November.  The Court’s decision in that case should further refine the Court’s guidance in Wal-Mart Stores, Inc. v. Dukes about the proper standards for federal courts in reviewing motions for class certification.   Recently, a team of appellate and … Continue Reading

Is “Materiality” a Class Certification or Merits Issue?

Contributing Author: Taylor Jackson The Supreme Court agreed last month to hear an appeal from a Ninth Circuit case, Conn. Retirement Plans & Trust Funds v. Amgen, Inc., 660 F.3d 1170 (9th Cir. 2011), that affirmed an order certifying a securities fraud class based on the fraud-on-the-market theory. Plaintiffs alleged Amgen misrepresented the safety of … Continue Reading

Thoughts on Class Actions After Wal-Mart Stores, Inc. v. Dukes

After the Supreme Court’s decision in Wal–Mart Stores, Inc. v. Dukes, 131 S.Ct. 2541 (2011) was announced, many believed class certification of employment classes or Rule 23b(2) classes would be a thing of the past.  Developments after Dukes, however, demonstrate that, to the contrary, courts have found ways to avoid the impact of Dukes. Dukes … Continue Reading

Supreme Court Allows Arbitration Despite Non-Disclosure of a Customer’s Right to Sue

The Supreme Court’s recent decision in CompuCredit Corp. v. Greenwood, 565 U.S. __, 132 S.Ct. 665, 181 L.Ed.2d 586 (2012), found that despite an act requiring a disclosure of a consumer’s “right to sue,” claims under the act would still be arbitrable absent clear congressional intent to the contrary. Plaintiffs held credit cards marketed and … Continue Reading

Supreme Court Limits Use of Injunctions to Thwart Relitigation of Denial of Certification

In an opinion written by Justice Kagan, the Supreme Court’s recent decision in Smith v. Bayer, 131 S. Ct. 2368 (2011) leaves class action plaintiffs with a way in which to potentially relitigate adverse certification decisions.  Holding that a federal court could not enjoin a state court from determining a motion for certification similar to … Continue Reading

The Supreme Court’s Shady Grove Decision – Erie Unexplained

The Supreme Court’s decision in Shady Grove Orthopedic Associates, P.A. v. Allstate Ins. Co., 130 S. Ct. 1431 (2010) does little to clarify the application of the Erie Doctrine.  While many courts endeavor to apply and follow Erie, the classification of statutes and rules as “substantive” or “procedural” is far from uniform.  In a plurality … Continue Reading

Supreme Court’s Wal-Mart Decision Holds Title VII Class Not Certifiable for Lack of Commonality and Rejects Rule 23(b)(2) Certification

In Wal-Mart Stores, Inc. v. Dukes, 564 U.S. __, 131 S.Ct. 2541, 180 L.Ed.2d 374 (2011), the Supreme Court held that a Title VII discrimination claim could not be determined on a casewide basis where employment decisions were made locally with no corporate direction. The Court also determined that claims for backpay could not certified … Continue Reading
LexBlog