Our quarterly report discusses new developments in class action litigation and offers strategic guidance and tactical tips on how to defend such claims. This issue covers the following topics:
Articles Discussing General Issues In Employment Law Class Actions
Court Denies Class Certification in Telephone Consumer Protection Act Case, Citing Plaintiff’s “Unique” Circumstances
For employers who are facing class claims under the Telephone Consumer Protection Act, you may have more support for your defense: The U.S. District Court for the Southern District of California recently granted Wilshire Consumer Capital’s (WCC) motion to deny class certification in a putative class action filed under the TCPA.
More Lessons in Class and Collective Actions From Lyft
There’s been a lot of buzz in the past few weeks surrounding Lyft’s proposed class action settlement in Lyft v. Cotter, NDCA Case No. 13-cv-04064-VC. Under the terms of the proposed settlement, Lyft will, among other things, (1) pay putative class members $12.25 million; (2) replace its current at-will termination provision with one that allows Lyft to deactivate drivers only for specific reasons or after providing a driver notice and an opportunity to cure; and (3) pay the arbitration fees and costs unique to arbitration for claims brought by drivers against Lyft related to their employment with Lyft.
The Supreme Court Rules an Unaccepted Offer of Judgment Cannot Moot a Case, But What About Payment of Complete Relief?
A divided U.S. Supreme Court recently ruled in Campbell-Ewald Co. v. Gomez1 that an unaccepted settlement offer or offer of judgment is a legal nullity that cannot moot a case. However, the Court left open the possibility that payment of complete relief may suffice.
Unaccepted Offers of Complete Relief to Named Plaintiff Do Not Moot Class/Collective Claims
Yesterday, the United States Supreme Court issued its opinion in Campbell-Ewald Co. v. Gomez, resolving a split among the federal Circuit Courts of Appeal on the issue of whether an unaccepted Rule 68 offer of judgment to the representative plaintiff in a class or collective action operates to moot the class/collective claims.
Supreme Court Weighs in on Class Action “Pick Off”, but Leaves Significant Questions Unanswered
The U.S. Supreme Court today eliminated a strategy defendants have used to stem the rising tide of class action lawsuits—offering the named plaintiffs in a class action lawsuit full relief, mooting their individual claim (regardless if they accept it), and along with it, rendering the class action moot. Campbell-Ewald Co. v. Gomez.
U.S. Supreme Court Issues Decision In ‘Pick-Off’ Case
This morning the U.S. Supreme Court issued its decision in Campbell-Ewald Company v. Gomez. Here is the decision. The Court decided (6-3) that an unaccepted offer of judgment does not moot a case, resolving the circuit split, and answering the question left unanswered in Genesis Healthcare Corp. v. Symczyk (more on Genesis and the lead-up to Campbell-Ewald discussed here). The majority adopted Justice Kagan’s dissent in Genesis. The Court did not decide what would happen if the defendant deposits the full amount due (as opposed to just making the offer) and the court enters judgment in that amount, leaving that issue for another day. More analysis of the decision to follow.
Class Action Trends Report Fall 2015
Our quarterly Class Action Trends Report discusses significant new developments in class action litigation and offers strategic guidance and tactical tips on how to defend such claims.
U.S. Supreme Court Hears Argument on Viability of ‘No-Injury’ Class Actions under Fair Credit Reporting Act and Other Statutes
Whether a plaintiff who alleges no injury may bring a lawsuit, including a class action, based on a violation of statutory rights was the central issue before the U.S. Supreme Court on November 2, 2015, when the Court heard oral argument in Spokeo, Inc. v. Robins, et al., No. 13-1339.
Does An Offer of Complete Relief Moot a Plaintiff’s Individual and Corresponding Class Claims?
If an employee brings a class action lawsuit, the employer offers the representative employee more than he could possibly recover individually in the lawsuit and the employee rejects the offer, does the offer “moot” the individual’s claims and, more importantly, require dismissal of the class claims as well?
Class Actions in the Balance: U.S. Supreme Court Hears Oral Argument in ‘Pick-Off’ Case
The U.S. Supreme Court heard oral argument in Campbell-Ewald Company v. Gomez, No. 14-857, a case that could significantly affect the viability of class action litigation, particularly wage and hour class actions, though the case pending before the Court arises under the Telephone Consumer Protection Act (TCPA).
Jackson Lewis Class Action Trends Report Now Available
Below is a link to the latest issue of the Jackson Lewis Class Action Trends Report.
Class Arbitration of ERISA Claims: Yes You Can!
ERISA neither expressly nor impliedly prohibits mandatory arbitration of claims. Numerous courts that have analyzed the purpose of both ERISA and the Federal Arbitration Act (“FAA”) have held that ERISA claims are arbitrable. And while the Supreme Court has not spoken directly to the issue, the Court’s pro-arbitration jurisprudence under the FAA – culminating with several decisions approving the inclusion of class action waivers in arbitration agreements – strongly suggests that it would approve of the inclusion of ERISA claims in an arbitration agreement. Moreover, courts applying the recent Supreme Court decisions involving mandatory arbitration agreements have affirmed the use of class waivers in a variety of federal statutory contexts, including ERISA. As a result, more and more employers are implementing broad arbitration clauses with class action waivers.
SCOTUS Denies Review of Another Case Involving PAGA Representative Action Waivers in Arbitration Agreement
The United States Supreme Court unfortunately denied review in Bridgestone Retail Operations v. Milton Brown (Docket No. 14-790) – thereby declining a second opportunity to review the California Supreme Court’s determination that PAGA representative action waivers in employment arbitration agreements are not enforceable. Earlier this year, the U.S. Supreme Court denied review in Iskanian v. CLS Transportation, which first presented the issue for review before the high Court. In Iskanian, the California Supreme Court of course held that class action waivers in arbitration agreements are enforceable, but that PAGA representative action waivers are not. The Iskanian Court’s reasoning is difficult to square with U.S. Supreme Court precedent in Concepcion v. AT&T Mobility. As such, many employers were hoping the Court would grant review if not in Iskanian then at least in Bridgestone — with the issue being presented for a second time in that case. No such luck.
Ninth Circuit Holds CAFA $5 Million Amount in Controversy Requirement Must Rely on “Reasonable” Chain of Reasoning and Underlying Assumptions
Last week, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit issued two opinions attempting to clarify what proof a defendant seeking removal must produce to establish the $5 million amount-in-controversy requirement for removing a class action lawsuit under the Class Action Fairness Act (CAFA).