Class actions are not the only form of aggregate litigation. Multi-district litigation (“MDL”), the process by which large numbers of smaller lawsuits are consolidated before a single judge for pretrial purposes, without requiring any kind of certification process, has been around since 1968.  And, as courts have demanded more rigor for Rule 23 certification, MDLs

There are several practices in class action litigation that really only work if you squint real hard and accept that, as a practical if not a doctrinal matter, class actions are just “different” than other litigation.  These practices tend to go unchallenged until someone without a vested interest in the current system points out that,

2013 did not offer the blockbuster docket in front of the Supreme Court that 2011 did, but that didn’t stop the Court from issuing a number of opinions whose effects will be felt for some time to come. In addition, a number of other courts took bold steps to either support or constrain class

Back in January, NERA Economic Consulting published yet another interesting paper, entitled Dynamic Litigation Analysis: Predicting Securities Class Action Settlements as a Case Evolves, by Dr. Ronald Miller.

Using the data NERA has collected on securities class actions over 20 years, Dr. Miller comes to some interesting conclusions about motions practice in securities

 … from November’s cases so far:

  • CAFA has not changed the rule that a counterclaim cannot confer federal jurisdiction.  Resurgent Capital Servs., LP v. Thomason, 2012 U.S. Dist. LEXIS (W.D. Mo. Nov. 5, 2012) (remanding case).
  • Courts get suspicious when parties widen the scope of a class action during settlement negotiations.  Smith