Many states have statutes establishing that, as a condition of registering to do business in a state, a foreign corporation consents to general personal jurisdiction in that state.  Since the Supreme Court’s decision in Daimler AG v. Bauman, 571 U.S. 117 (2014) tightening the scope of the general personal jurisdiction doctrine, lower courts have…

In Association of American Physicians & Surgeons v. United States Food and Drug Administration (“AAPS”), __ F.4th __, 2021 WL 4097325 (6th Cir. Sept. 9, 2021), the Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals recently cast doubt on the continued viability of the associational standing doctrine.
…
Continue Reading Associations, stand down: Sixth Circuit Casts Doubt on Associational Standing

Last year, the Seventh and D.C. Circuits addressed the contours of personal jurisdiction in federal class actions.  Now, the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals has joined the mix in Moser v. Benefytt, Inc., __ F.4th __, 2021 WL 3504041 (9th Cir. Aug. 2021).

In Moser, after the district court denied the defendant’s…

On July 16, in Smith v. Professional Transportation Inc.,[1] the Seventh Circuit answered what might at first seem like an unnecessary question:  how does a plaintiff “commence” an FLSA lawsuit?  Under most circumstances, of course, a named plaintiff need only file a Complaint, and the lawsuit is off and running.  But unlike Rule 23 class actions, the FLSA requires putative collective action members to affirmatively opt into a collective action by giving their consent in writing.  Specifically, the statute says that “[n]o employee shall be a party plaintiff to any such [collective] action unless he gives his consent in writing to become such a party” and the consent is filed with the court.  29 U.S.C. § 216(b).  In other words, each employee’s lawsuit is “commenced,” and the statute of limitations stops running for that individual, on the date he or she files a signed consent.
…
Continue Reading How to ‘Commence’ an FLSA Lawsuit: More Than Meets the Eye

The following article originally appeared on Law360 (Part 1 and Part 2).

In the 2013 case Comcast Corp. v. Behrend,[1] the U.S. Supreme Court explained that a party seeking class certification must satisfy the requirements of Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23 through evidentiary proof.

What few practitioners may recall, however, is the…

On June 25, 2021, the United States Supreme Court issued its opinion in TransUnion LLC v. Ramirez (“Ramirez”), holding that all plaintiffs, to include absent class members, must demonstrate that they have suffered a concrete harm in order to have Article III standing to sue for damages.  Building off its decision in Spokeo v. Robins, LLC, the Court confirmed that even where Congress passes a law creating an individual cause of action, uninjured plaintiffs do not have standing to sue in federal court simply because that law is violated.  Justice Kavanaugh, writing for a 5-4 majority, summarized the Court’s holding in five simple words: “No concrete harm, no standing.”
…
Continue Reading No-Injury Class Actions: U.S. Supreme Court Issues Final Ruling (Part II)

Monday, the Supreme Court issued its highly anticipated ruling in Goldman Sachs Group, Inc. v. Arkansas Teacher Retirement System, holding that the generic nature of an alleged misrepresentation may be important evidence of price impact to rebut the Basic presumption of reliance and thus should be considered at class certification.

The decision provides defendants facing securities fraud class actions – particularly so-called “inflation maintenance” cases – with an important tool to defeat class certification.

…
Continue Reading A New Avenue for Defendants in Securities Fraud Class Actions: Supreme Court Holds “Generic” Nature of Statements Is “Important Evidence” of Price Impact at Class Certification

Two U.S. Circuit Courts of Appeals recently weighed in on what it takes to establish standing to pursue a Telephone Consumer Protection Act (TCPA) claim. The 5th Circuit held that receipt of one unwanted text message is enough to satisfy Article III, which deviates from a prior 11th Circuit decision holding that one text message…

For far too long, companies facing consumer and product liability litigation have relied solely on personal jurisdiction doctrine to try avoiding unfavorable forums applying unfavorable law. Personal jurisdiction doctrine, though useful, is ultimately a tool that produces inconsistent results.

Instead, companies facing consumer and product liability litigation should turn to another, well-developed body of law that may more consistently establish the procedural boundaries of any potential litigation: the law of contract. Courts have recognized that plaintiffs and defendants can pre-suit contract to terms governing any future tort litigation, including the place of suit, the law that applies, whether arbitration is necessary, and whether class actions are permitted.

…
Continue Reading Using Contracts to Avoid Problematic Jurisdictions and Unfavorable Law