It is our distinct pleasure to call attention to this piece in BNA’s Class Action Report, authored by McGuireWoods associate Arsen Kourinian. It’s well worth the few minutes it will take you to read.… Continue Reading
Those who tuned in to McGuireWoods’ data breach class action webinar last month know that attacking the plaintiff’s standing can be an effective defense strategy in these cases. Here’s our analysis of the most recent appellate decision on that issue.
Last Tuesday, the Second Circuit Court of Appeals affirmed the district court’s dismissal of a putative class action filed against a merchant in connection with a data breach of customer information, holding that the cardholder failed to allege sufficient injury to establish standing.
The decision adds yet another data point for practitioners feeling out the boundaries for when the exposure … Continue Reading
As you probably know, on Wednesday, the Supreme Court finally issued its long-awaited opinion in Campbell-Ewald Co. v. Gomez. Tammy Adkins & Helen Arnold of McGuireWoods’s Chicago office wrote up an excellent summary, which I’m quoting below:
… Continue Reading
On January 20th, 2016, in Campbell-Ewald Co. v. Gomez, a case closely watched by both sides of the class action bar, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled in an opinion authored by Justice Ruth Bader Ginsberg that an unaccepted Rule 68 offer of judgment did not moot the Telephone Consumer Protection Act (TCPA) putative class action brought by plaintiff Jose Gomez.
Courts look down on offers of judgment in class actions as a procedural trick. Used properly, however, they are an effective early screen for cases that can’t be certified.
One of the most heated debates in the last five years of class action practice has been the proper use of Rule 68’s offer of judgment. Defendants like the offer of judgment because it can either moot a case early in (thus shutting down lawsuits that could cost hundreds of thousands of dollars to defeat in conventional litigation), and because the cost-shifting procedures place some of the financial risk of the … Continue Reading
Two couples, the Varsamises and the Giannopolouses, sued Iberia Air Lines for not properly compensating them after their international flights were delayed. Their counsel soon ran into plaintiff-related difficulties: the Giannopolouses were not typical of the class (and wound up accepting Iberia’s Rule 68 offer of judgment); the Varsamises’ claims were dismissed at the summary judgment stage. The class action was over; all that was necessary was for someone to call time of death. And Iberia filed a motion for final judgment to do just that.
At that point, plaintiffs’ counsel filed a motion of their own, “to reopen discovery … Continue Reading
Securities class actions are interesting for many reasons. They involve large stakes, and so they also attract outsized personalities. They are also more strictly regulated than other class actions. And, as a result, they often lead to unusual tactics for class action litigation. For example, as Professor Mark Gideon points out in his article Recanting Confidential Witnesses in Securities Litigation, 45 Loy. U. Chi. L.J. 575 (2014), because of the heightened pleading requirements they face, securities plaintiffs rely increasingly on confidential witnesses to prop up their complaints, particularly when pleading scienter.
Professor Gideon expresses concern about those courts … Continue Reading
In Franco v. Allied Interstate LLC, No. 13 Civ. 4503, 2014 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 47077 (S.D.N.Y. Apr. 2, 2014), the named plaintiff sued the defendant for sending him a debt collection letter that implied he could face garnishment of his wages if he did not pay his debt. He did not allege any actual damages, relying instead on the FDCPA’s statutory damages provision.
In response, the defendant made a Rule 68 offer of judgment of $1,501 plus reasonable costs and attorneys’ fees as allowed by the court, one dollar more than the statutory maximum damages the plaintiff could receive. … Continue Reading
In Labou v. Cellco Partnership, No. 2:13-cv-00844-MCE-EFB, 2014 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 26974 (E.D. Cal. Mar. 3, 2014), the named plaintiff sued cell phone company Verizon. She alleged that Verizon had used an automatic dialer to call her cell phone in an attempt to get her former brother-in-law to pay his cell phone bill, a practice that allegedly violated the Telephone Consumer Protection Act (TCPA). And she sought to certify a class of everyone else Verizon had contacted with an automatic dialer.
There was a twist: the TCPA does not prohibit collection calls so long as the recipient is not … Continue Reading
Rule 68 offers of judgment have been controversial in the class action context. Defendants will often use them in an attempt to moot the class claims of the named plaintiff: offering full relief first, and then moving to dismiss the case on jurisdictional grounds should the plaintiff decline the offer.
But there is a second, also controversial, use of the offer of judgment, where the defendant makes the offer as a means of limiting litigation costs. Under Rule 68(d), if the defendant makes an offer for a definite amount, the plaintiff rejects the offer, and then recovers less than … Continue Reading
It’s a tale as old as the Telephone Consumer Protection Act ("TCPA"): defendant Janssen Pharmaceuticals sent out a fax reporting on the reclassification of its drug Levaquin for insurance purposes. The plaintiff sued it for violating the TCPA, claiming the fax was an advertisement; Janssen responded that the content of the fax was informational. It won a motion to dismiss, but the court allowed the plaintiff to file an amended complaint.
At that point, Janssen moved the court to bifurcate discovery. But where the typical motion to bifurcate asks for merits discovery after class-related discovery, Janssen asked for … Continue Reading