The 7th Circuit in Schutte v. Ciox Health, LLC., construed the Local Controversy Exception to the Class Action Fairness Act.[1] CAFA’s Local Controversy Exception applies, in pertinent part, if “during the 3-year period preceding the filing of that class action, no other class action has been filed asserting the same or similar factual allegations against any of the defendants, on behalf of the same or other persons.”[2] The Court interpreted this requirement broadly, finding that even when cases with different legal theories had been filed in different states, courts may refuse to remand if there are “the same or similar factual allegations” in those cases. There are three other situations that trigger the Local Controversy Exception[3] but the court did not address them.
Continue Reading Seventh Circuit Construes CAFA Exception for the First Time
Re-Evaluating Bifurcated Discovery in Class Actions After a Recent Seventh Circuit Decision
A new Seventh Circuit decision – Santiago v. City of Chicago – bolsters the strategy among some class action defense lawyers to not bifurcate class certification and merits discovery.[i] This strategy instead contemplates that the opposition to Plaintiff’s class certification motion will be filed simultaneously with a motion for summary judgment. The Seventh Circuit’s
Ninth Circuit Stresses District Court’s Duty to Weigh Competing Expert Evidence at Class Certification
The Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit issued a decision recently in Olean Wholesale Grocery Cooperative, Inc. v. Bumble Bee Foods LLC (“Olean Wholesale”), confirming that district courts must rigorously examine competing expert evidence when determining whether the requirements of class certification have been satisfied.
In Olean Wholesale, litigation related
Seventh Circuit Rejects the “Reasonable Indication” Approach For Class Member Opt-Outs
Recently, in the Matter of Navistar MaxxForce Engines Mktg., Sales Practices, & Prod. Liab. Litig. (“Navistar”), the Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals was asked to adopt the “reasonable indication” approach, which would allow class members to opt out of a class based on any reasonable indication of their desire to exclude themselves. Finding the
Santa’s List of Names Does Not Define a Class
For more than a decade, United States District Courts have taken a stark approach to the need for appropriate class definitions and ascertainability in federal class actions. Mueller v. CBS, Inc., 200 F.R.D. 227, 233 (W.D. Pa. 2001) (a class definition cannot be “amorphous, vague or indeterminate.”); Adair v. Johnston, 221 F.R.D. 573,
Does Continued Collection of The Same Biometric Information Increase BIPA Violations? The Seventh Circuit (or Illinois Supreme Court) Has An Opportunity to Clear the Air
On October 13. 2020, White Castle System, Inc. petitioned the United States Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit for permission to seek an interlocutory appeal pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1292(b). This petition arises out of the United States District Court for the Northern District of Illinois’ opinion on White Castle’s motion for judgment
Eleventh Circuit Panel Finds Class Action Incentive Payment Improper
On September 17, 2020, in a potentially groundbreaking decision that could have huge implications for the future of class actions, a split panel of the Eleventh Circuit held that incentive payments given to a named plaintiff in a class action are improper. See Johnson v. NPAS Solutions, LLC, No. 18-12344, “Slip Op.” (11th Cir.
Campus Conundrum: Defeating COVID-19 Class Actions in Higher Education
In response to governmental recommendations, stay-at-home orders, and shelter-in-place orders, colleges and universities transitioned to distance learning to keep their students, staff, visitors, and communities safe and healthy. Nonetheless, the plaintiffs’ bar has viewed this as an opportunity to pounce and even advertise to sue colleges and universities nationwide. Indeed, plaintiffs’ attorneys have filed over
Motions to Strike: Challenging Specific Jurisdiction for Nonresident Putative Class Members
We recently discussed Circuit Court rulings allowing nationwide class actions where the named plaintiffs could satisfy specific personal jurisdiction. Since then, the Fifth Circuit has held that a defendant did not waive its personal jurisdiction defense to plaintiffs’ nationwide class allegations by raising the defense for the first time in opposition to class certification. See
Federal Circuit Courts’ Differing Interpretations of Scope and Application of Article III Standing after Spokeo Leaves Defendants with Uncertainty
In Spokeo, Inc. v. Robins, 136 S. Ct. 1540 (2016), the Supreme Court held that Article III requires plaintiffs to establish a “concrete and particularized” injury-in-fact, “even in the context of a statutory violation.” Although the Supreme Court noted that “intangible” injuries, including the “violation of a procedural right” can be sufficient in some