Total Articles: 12
Jackson Lewis P.C. • January 06, 2019
A three-judge panel of the Third Circuit has struck down U.S. District Judge Arthur J. Schwab’s decision granting class certification in a suit brought by mortgage loan officers claiming they were denied overtime pay by their employer. Reinig v. RBS Citizens, NA, No. 17-3464 (3d Cir. Dec. 31, 2018).
Jackson Lewis P.C. • November 05, 2018
The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit just denied a request to review en banc a panel ruling that authorizes trial courts to consider evidence that would be inadmissible at trial when deciding whether a class may be certified (Sali v. Corona Regional Medical Center (D.C. No. 5:14-cv-00985-PSG-JPR)). The decision was filed on Thursday, November 1 over a sharply critical dissenting opinion authored by Judge Carlos Bea. Bea, who was joined by four of his colleagues, wrote that the majority’s decision “involves a question of exceptional importance and is plainly wrong.”
Jackson Lewis P.C. • August 20, 2018
The U.S Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit recently vacated a Utah district court’s finding that a class of truckers satisfied Rule 23 for purposes of settling two wage-hour actions due to a cursory review below, setting aside a multi-million dollar settlement and remanding the case for further proceedings.
Jackson Lewis P.C. • August 19, 2018
J.B. Hunt Transport Inc., one of the largest transportation logistics companies in North America, recently prevailed on a motion to decertify a class of around 11,000 current and former truck drivers, just six weeks before trial.
XpertHR • August 19, 2018
The US Supreme Court's May ruling in Epic Systems v. Lewis, that companies may compel their employees to arbitrate workplace disputes individually rather than as part of a class action, is already having a host of implicati ons on other cases.
Jackson Lewis P.C. • May 09, 2018
On May 3, 2018, in Sali v. Corona Medical Center, et al., Case Number 15-56460, a putative wage-hour class action, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit held that evidence does not have to be admissible for it to be considered in support of class certification. The Ninth Circuit concluded that the district court erred by striking a declaration at the class certification stage because district courts cannot “decline to consider evidence solely on the basis that the evidence is inadmissible at trial.” Id. at 10.
Jackson Lewis P.C. • April 03, 2017
Those who follow developments in wage and hour class actions know that challenges to the exempt status of assistant managers are quite common.
Jackson Lewis P.C. • September 26, 2016
The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit recently held that district courts can decertify a class after a jury verdict but before entry of final judgment. In Mazzei v. Money Store, 2016 U.S. App. LEXIS 12994 (2d Cir. July 15, 2016), the appellate court affirmed the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York’s post-jury-verdict decertification of a class of home loan borrowers, thereby overturning a $55 million jury award.
Jackson Lewis P.C. • June 29, 2016
Employers recently gained support for one of their defenses to class claims, and in a case against a union no less, after a federal court in Illinois found that union members’ claims may require individualized questions and therefore were not appropriate for class treatment. See Riffey v. Rauner, et al., 10-cv-02477 (N.D. Ill. June 7, 2016).
Jackson Lewis P.C. • May 03, 2016
Facebook, Inc. (“Facebook”) recently filed a motion to dismiss class action claims alleging that Facebook sent unsolicited text messages to users containing birthday announcements in violation of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act (“TCPA”). The TCPA generally restricts telephone solicitations (i.e., telemarketing) and the use of automated telephone equipment, and limits the use of automatic dialing systems, artificial or prerecorded voice messages, SMS text messages and fax machines.
Jackson Lewis P.C. • September 17, 2015
On December 15, 2015, several amendments to the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure are scheduled to take effect, including one which may assist employers to reduce the cost of defending class actions. The scope of permissible discovery under Rule 26 will no longer be defined as “reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence.” Amended Rule 26(b)(1) will instead require discovery to be proportional to the needs of the case. Parties may obtain discovery that is relevant to any party’s claim or defense and proportional to the needs of the case, with consideration of the following five factors: (1) the importance of the issues at stake in the action; (2) the parties’ relative access to relevant information; (3) the parties’ resources; (4) the importance of the discovery in resolving the issues; and (5) whether the burden or expense of the proposed discovery outweighs its likely benefit.
Jackson Lewis P.C. • September 11, 2015
Many employers who are familiar with class actions know that merits-based discovery is generally impermissible before a class has been certified. As a result, these employers often push back – without much forethought – on merits-based discovery that they consider to be “invasive” during the pre-certification stage.