WASHINGTON – It was a closely watched case that came to a dramatic and unexpected conclusion of questionable precedential value. Now attorneys are left pondering what effect, if any, the U.S. Supreme Court’s decision in Comcast Corp. v. Behrend will have on class-action certifications.
A consumer class action should not have been certified because the plaintiffs’ expert testimony failed to establish that the case was susceptible to awarding damages on a class-wide basis.
U.S. Supreme Court. » Continue Reading.
A consumer class action should not have been certified because the plaintiffs’ expert testimony failed to establish that the case was susceptible to awarding damages on a class-wide basis, the U.S. Supreme Court has ruled 5-4.
An employer could compel arbitration when sued by a former female employee for engaging in a continuing pattern or practice of sex discrimination, the 2nd U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals has ruled in reversing judgment.
WASHINGTON — The U.S. Supreme Court’s first ruling addressing the Class Action Fairness Act is the latest bit of good news from Washington for the class action defense bar.
A securities fraud plaintiff was not required to submit proof of materiality in order to obtain class certification, the U.S. Supreme Court has ruled 6-3.
A $35.5 million class settlement of consumer claims should not have been approved without fuller consideration of whether it could have been structured to provide a greater direct benefit to class members, the 3rd U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals has ruled in reversing judgment.
A debt adjuster could not enforce a binding arbitration clause in its service contract when sued by a customer for violating state consumer protection law, the Washington Supreme Court has ruled in affirming judgment.
Toyota could not enforce arbitration clauses in its dealerships’ purchase agreements and leases when sued for manufacturing cars with defective brake systems, the 9th Circuit has ruled in affirming judgment.