Ah, class decertification in district court…the rarely glimpsed, late-harvest victory that comparatively few class action defense counsel can claim to have tasted. U.S. District Judge Charles Breyer of the Northern District of California recently delivered one such victory for the 2016 vintage, decertifying a plaintiff class he originally certified in 2012 in a wage-and-hour litigation
Dukes v. Wal-Mart
Reactions to Dukes: Litigation Strategy & Legal Change
Longtime readers may remember that last February I had the pleasure of participating in the DePaul Law Review’s symposium on Class Action Rollback. The article from that symposium will be appearing shortly in the DePaul Law Review, and a very late draft of it is now available at SSRN. Without further comment…
Klonoff on Rule 23(b)(1)
Rule 23(b)(1) is the forgotten stepchild in Rule 23 jurisprudence. Rule 23(b)(3) gets attention because it’s where the money is. Rule 23(b)(2) is essential to civil rights groups seeking injunctions, and drew attention from plaintiffs’ lawyers seeking an end-run around what they viewed as Rule 23(b)(3)’s more stringent requirements. But case law on Rule 23(b)(1)(A)…
Technological Change & Commonality – Hartman v United Bank Card Inc
As marketing guru Seth Godin has put it frequently, we live in an attention economy. Most of us are busy people, and getting unwanted interruptions can be a huge hassle. That is one reason why class actions against blast-faxers and robo-callers have such appeal; they seem like the ideal way to punish people who…
Class Action Summer Camp – Commonality & Predominance
Commonality (Rule 23(a)(2)) and predominance (one half of Rule 23(b)(3)) are often considered the heart of the class action certification inquiry. Rightly so, for they both strike at the real question a judge must ask: do the class members have enough in common to justify binding them all together in a single case? Through the…
Is the New Group Action Bill Cause for Concern?
Last week, Senator Al Franken (D-Minn) proposed a bill that would partially reverse the Supreme Court’s opinion in Wal-Mart Stores, Inc. v. Dukes.
According to Senator Franken’s press release, the Equal Opportunity Employment Restoration Act (good title) would add a section 4201 to 28 U.S.C.:
Section 4201(a) creates a new judicial
…
The New Normal in Class Action Defense – Khalif L. v. City of Union City
Today’s case is interesting in no small part because it shows just how far class-action arguments have come in the last 18 months. In the latter half of 2010, most defendants faced with a class action would look primarily at adequacy (are the named plaintiffs good representatives?), typicality (do the named plaintiffs have the same…
The Problem with Trial by Formula
In Wal-Mart Stores, Inc. v. Dukes, Justice Scalia registered his disapproval of using statistics to litigate liability in a class action, writing
The Court of Appeals believed that it was possible to replace such proceedings with Trial by Formula. A sample set of the class members would be selected, as to whom liability for
…
Cohesiveness and Commonality – MD v Perry
In the wake of Wal-Mart Stores, Inc. v. Dukes, plaintiffs and trial courts are still trying to determine exactly how to apply the clarified commonality standard of Rule 23(a)(2), and the standard for injunctive relief under Rule 23(b)(2). The good news for defendants, as demonstrated in the new case M.D. v. Perry, 2012…
Rhetoric – Oddball Cases and Slaughtered Hogs
At the DePaul symposium a few weeks back, Professor Suja Thomas argued that the Supreme Court should not take on "oddball" cases, because the outlying facts make for decisions that are too sweeping. (She’s made this argument before about Iqbal and Twombly, so you don’t have to wait for the DePaul Law Review’s Symposium…