Search

The article discusses the U.S. Supreme Court case Halliburton Co. v. Erica P. John Fund, Inc. (Halliburton II) wherein court held that plaintiffs of securities were not required to prove loss causation in order to gain class certification. Topics discussed include private cause of action for securities fraud investigated under the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission's Rule 10b-5, impact of Halliburton Co. case on the Basic Inc. v. Levinson and different court decisions made in the cases.

The article offers information on several topics associated with employment and labor laws of Michigan in reference with several court cases. Topics discussed include the case Duskin v. Department of Human Services related to class certification for discrimination in promotional opportunities, Henry v. Laborers' Local 1191 related to retaliation claims due to violation of Whistleblowers' Protection Act (WPA), and Klein v. HP Pelzer Automotive related to violation of employment contracts.

The article focuses on the development and use of Rule 23(f) of the U.S. Federal Rule of Civil Procedure and the authorization of the interlocutory appeals for class action certification decisions. Topics discussed include approaches taken by the courts of appeal to determine the interlocutory review under Rule 23(f), its exception to the final judgment rule by granting the appellate court discretion and the U.S. Supreme Court case Coopers & Lybrand v. Livesay related to final judgment rule.

The article focuses on the Article III of the U.S. Constitution on voluntary dismissal and denial of class certification appeals and decision of U.S. Supreme Court in the cases United States Parole Commission v. Geraghty and Deposit Guaranty National Bank v. Roper on the dismissal with prejudice.

The article discusses the approaches taken by courts for resolving the challenge to class certification at pleading stage prior to discovery and mentions the importance of Rule 23 of the Federal Rule of Civil Procedure as a appropriate mechanism to challenge class certification at pleading stage.

The article focuses on the voluntary settlement of the claims related to compensation, deterrence, and legitimacy. Topics discussed include the fundamental assumptions of class action system, the resolution of the claims for class certification, and the judicial opinions of the U.S. Supreme Court on case Amchem Products, Inc. v. Windsor.

The article discusses U.S. Supreme Court cases involving class actions including Comcast v. Behrend, Wal-Mart Stores Inc. v. Dukes et al., and AT&T Mobility LLC v. Concepcion in which Court limited class action litigation and class arbitration. Topics include class action waivers and class certification under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure; circuit courts' narrow application of Supreme Court's decisions on class actions; and the need to further limit the application of class action litigation.

The article offers information about the court cases R. v. Moore (Mia) and R. v. Burrows (Ben Peter) that were executed in the Criminal Division of the Court of Appeal of Great Britain. Topics discussed include entrapment of the defendants supplying drugs to the undercover police officers, abuse of process and illegal supply of the firearms and drugs. It further informs about the dismissal of the defendants motion of class certification.

The 1966 amendment of Rule 23 provided plaintiffs with an extremely powerful procedural device. Since then, much controversy has surrounded Rule 23. Judges have often shown hostility towards certification of frivolous class actions that result in large fees for attorneys but little recovery for class members. The Third Circuit has recently used the requirement that a class be ascertainable to create an extremely high bar for certification of small-claims consumer class actions. Such class actions in the Third Circuit are essentially fruitless unless a plaintiff can individually identify all potential class members prior to class certification. The Third Circuit is the first circuit court to use ascertainability to create a bar to class certification. Class certifications will vary widely depending on whether or not the circuit in which the class action is brought has adopted the Third Circuit's interpretation of ascertainability. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The article focuses on determination of whether a purported class action meets the requirements for class certification under Louisiana's class action procedures. Two Louisiana Supreme Court cases discussed include Price v. Martin, in which the Court granted certiorari to review whether the lower courts correctly applied the commonality requirement and Alexander v. Norfolk Southern Corp, dealing with chemical spill. Other topics include class action Lis Pendens, forum non conveniens.

The article offers information about the lawsuit filed Elliott v. KB Home N.C. Inc. for waiving its contractual rights to arbitration. Topics discussed include class actions filed by the plaintiffs for the waiving of contractual rights, rights of the plaintiffs for protection against litigation and the appeal for class certification orders to the North Carolina Court of Appeals.

The article describes the history of the American Indian Trust Management Act of 1994 which requires the Secretary of State to make full accounting of trust accounts to each trust account holder annually and discusses a class action lawsuit against the Secretary filed by Eloise Cobell, one among other plaintiffs. It analyzes whether the Federal Rule of Civil Procedure Rule 23 permits class certification in light of an interclass conflict.

Contrary to the class action regimes that operate in the United States and Canada, the rules governing class actions in the Federal Court of Australia and in the Supreme Courts of the Australian states of Victoria and New South Wales do not employ what are commonly known as certification devices. As a result, the Australian regimes do not require the formal authorization of the court before a proceeding may be brought and conducted as a class action. Given that unlike the world's only other certification-free regime (the Swedish), Australia's class action rules are otherwise quite similar to their North American counterparts, they provide a valuable case study with respect to a fundamental question that has not generally been given the consideration it deserves by North American policy makers and commentators: can a comprehensive and modern class action regime operate satisfactorily without a certification mechanism? The aim of this Article is to explore this issue by providing the very first empirical evaluation of the operation of the mechanism that has been regulating since March 1992, in lieu of the certification device, what proceedings may be brought and conducted in the Federal Court of Australia as class actions. These empirical findings and the essential features of the alternative Australian model (frequently described as the decertification model) will also be compared and contrasted with the salient characteristics, and available empirical data concerning the operation of, the American and Canadian certification regimes. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

In 2012, the Fifth Circuit became the first circuit court to explicitly reject an argument that a fail-safe class--a class defined in terms of the defendant's liability--was barred from class certification under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23. Drawing on previous cases in which it had rejected challenges that class definitions were circular, the Fifth Circuit in In re Rodriguez outright disclaimed a prohibition against fail-safe classes. This decision diverged from the Sixth and Seventh Circuits' proscription against certifying fail-safe classes, creating a split among the circuits. This Note explores this circuit split and argues that fail-safe classes must be proscribed because they allow class members to escape the bar of res judicata. This Note concludes that characterizing a class as fail-safe should provide independent justification for denying class certification. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The article discusses the U.S. Supreme Court case of Wal-Mart Stores, Inc. v. Dukes, regarding party-neutral clarifications on principles of class action certification requirement under the Rule 23(a) and (b) of the U.S. Federal Rules of Civil Procedures. It informs about admissibility and persuasiveness of evidence offered in the Rule 23 proceedings. Despite the Court addressed issues related to the Rule 23(a), however it did not modify the Rule 23(b) (3), affecting individual members.

The author proposes a strategic model that focuses on the interpretation of class action doctrine as a reaction to the U.S. Supreme Court case of Wal-Mart Stores, Inc. v. Dukes. The model depicts that class actions can be used for mass compensation in some cases and can also deter office or governmental misconduct. It informs that the Dukes opinion is not a rollback as a correction and explains that class certification will never go however it can come in a modified form.

The article proposes a standard for evaluating optimal class size by examining the U.S. Supreme Court case of Wal-Mart Stores Inc. v. Dukes, as a vital consideration in class certification decisions. The key idea behind this proposal is to consider the class certification decisions that shed light on anything from one to total number of people that are harmed by defendants' alleged wrongdoing. It also discusses the U.S. Supreme Court case of Shady Grove Orthopedic Associates v. Allstate.

The article presents information on the U.S. Federal Rules of Civil Procedure in context to the U.S. Supreme Court interpretation of Rule 23 of civil actions in Wal-Mart Stores, Inc. v. Dukes case. The rule 23 of federal class action, explains the prerequisites for a party to represent others in order to acquire efficiency and due process. In Dukes, despite the Court redefined the class certification requirements for employment discrimination however the scope of decision is unclear.

The article discusses the U.S. Court of Appeals cases regarding class actions and the Rule 23 (c) (4) of the U.S. Federal Rule of Civil procedures including Allison v. Citgo Petroleum Corp., Castano v. American Tobacco Co., and McReynolds v. Merrill Lynch, Pierce, Fenner & Smith, Inc. In Castano and Allison, the Courts upheld that the Rule authorizes certification of issue classes when the common are carved at the joint rather than entangled with individual issues.

Courts rarely allow defendants to take discovery of absent class members after class action certification. However, if a court does permit such discovery and some absentees fail to respond, should the court sanction the nonresponsive absentees? Under what circumstances should the court dismiss the nonresponsive absentees? When considering whether and what sanctions to impose, courts make a decision about the rights and role of absentees in class actions. This Note examines post certification absentee discovery sanctions through a discussion of group litigation. Next, it analyzes the reasoning of courts that have dismissed absentees, declined to dismiss absentees, and imposed other sanctions on absentees. Finally, this Note concludes that courts should generally dismiss opt-out absentees without prejudice, and dismiss opt-in absentees with prejudice. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The article focuses on complex litigation in New Jersey state and federal courts. Topics include class certification of class action litigation, mass torts, and multidistrict litigation (MDL). Information is provided on the case management techniques used in complex litigation, the designation process, and the commonality requirement for class certification.

An essay is presented which focuses on procedural due process and class action litigation in the U.S. Topics include the scope of collective litigation, the limitations placed on class action certification, and aggregate litigation. Information is provided on 'cost-benefit' due process, mass torts, and civil litigation.

An essay is presented on the topic of class action litigation in the U.S. Topics include how federal courts have limited the availability of class action lawsuits, the class action procedure in the U.S., and how established case law undermines the efficiency of class action litigation. Information is provided on the class certification of complex mass tort cases.

The article focuses on the U.S. court case Wal-Mart v. Dukes, which dealt with due process in class action litigation. Topics include commonality in discrimination, the class action certification process in the U.S., and the collective public benefit. Information is provided on the U.S. Class Action Fairness Act.

The article focuses on the U.S. court case David v. Signal Int'l L.L.C., which dealt with the conscious denial of restitution to the victims of forced labor. Topics include the U.S. Victims of Trafficking and Violence Protection Act of 2000 (TVPA) and the use of class certification in forced labor claims.

The article discusses the case Wal-Mart Stores Inc. v. Dukes, in which the U.S. Supreme denied class action certification in its ruling. It informs that the decision of Supreme Court was opposed by some people in liberal circles, also including Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg. It presents information that the Justice agreed to a point that a class action certification is not possible under the Federal Rule of Civil procedure 23 (b) (2), which governs class actions in which injunctive relief.

The article presents information on two claims, one made by a citizen of Wyoming for breach of contract by the insurance company Vizzini v. Insurance Co. of North America and the other by a person against Humperdinck Inc. It informs that both plaintiffs claimed that they will not seek damages exceeding the minimum amount in controversy necessary to invoke federal diversity jurisdiction.

The article discusses the 2011 Supreme Court of Newfoundland and Labrador (Court of Appeal) case Canada (Attorney general) v. Anderson which deals with the certification of a class action under Newfoundland and Labrador's Class Actions Act of 2001. A common law duty of care under Canadian law is addressed, along with an alleged fiduciary duty owed to Aboriginal children.

The article discusses the issues related to the Rule 23 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure regarding class certification. It discusses the U.S. Supreme Court case Wal-Mart Stores Inc. v. Dukes. It states that the law should be restructured in order to eliminate the classification system and highlights that the law was enacted to provide clarity in class-action cases but the system has not been clarified yet.

The article discusses the effects of doctrine issue preclusion regarding class action certification. It presents information on the U.S. Supreme Court's decision in Smith v. Bayer Corp., which has influenced its proposals. It depicts that the issue preclusion in class action is a controversial topic. It outlines several proposals related to topics including preclusion, rebuttable presumption and comity.

The article focuses on the U.S. Supreme Court case Wal-Mart Stores, Inc. v. Dukes, which dealt with class action tort law. Topics include class certification in the U.S., the increased scrutiny on class action cases in the U.S. due to the case, and the validity of arbitration clauses. Information is provided on aggregate litigation.

The article focuses on the study which examines the federal questions on class certification and class settlement from 2003-2007. It mentions that the research was originally requested by the Judicial Conference Advisory Committee on Civil Rules (Rules Committee) in 2005. It states that the findings of the study who that class actions are still being filed and certified in federal courts despite the changes in the law of class action.