In case you missed it, the BakerHostetler class action defense team published its second annual Year-End Review of Class Actions last month. The 2013 issue was expertly edited by Dustin Dow of our Cleveland office, and features contributions from other members of the firm’s class action defense team across the country. The 54-page report has a thorough recap of the key class action developments in the U.S. Supreme Court as well as other federal and state courts, summaries of key developments in various substantive areas of law in which class actions are prominent, and a preview of what to look for in 2014. Click the link above to download a copy.
Posts Tagged ‘CAFA’
Posted in Class Action Decisions, Class Action Trends, tagged 2013 class action, amex III, behrend, CAFA, class action, class action settlement, class certification, comcast, cy pres, daubert, genesis healthcare, italian colors, kiobel, oxford health plans, raskas, standard fire, year in review, year-end review on February 17, 2014 | Leave a Comment »
Posted in CAFA Requirements, Class Action Decisions, Class Action Fairness Act, Supreme Court Decisions, tagged au optronics, CAFA, Class Action Fairness Act, mass action, mississippi, parens patriae, removal, scotus, Supreme Court on January 14, 2014 | Leave a Comment »
The U.S. Supreme Court issued its first class-action-related decision of the 2013-14 term today, or more precisely, its first non-mass-action-related decision of the term. In Mississippi ex rel. Jim Hood v. AU Optronics Corp., Case No. 12-1036 (U.S. Jan. 14, 2014), the Court held that a parens patriae action brought by the Mississippi attorney general on behalf of Missouri citizens was not a “mass action” subject to the Class Action Fairness Act of 2005. My partner Casie Collignon has a more detailed write-up on the decision at the BakerHostetler blog Class Action Lawsuit Defense.
Posted in Class Action Decisions, Supreme Court Decisions, tagged 2013, 6th circuit, 7th circuit, alien tort, amex III, amgen, behrend, CAFA, clapper, class action, comcast, daubert, diversity, erica p. john fund, extraterritorial, genesis healthcare, halliburton, italian colors, kiobel, moldy, oxford health, posner, royal dutch shell, scotus, sears, standard fire, Supreme Court, symczyk, top ten, whirlpool on January 7, 2014 | Leave a Comment »
2013 was a memorable year for class actions. I’ve assembled my top 10 most significant developments below. There were almost enough U.S. Supreme Court decisions to fill up the entire list, but my number 1 development was still a pair of lower court decisions that may also become the story of the year in 2014.
10. Kiobel v. Royal Dutch Petroleum Co., 133 S.Ct. 1659 (2013) – Not a class action decision per se, but likely to have significant repercussions on the development of international class action law. Extraterritorial effect of the Alien Tort Statute is significantly limited.
9. Clapper v. Amnesty Intern. USA, 133 S. Ct. 1138 (2013) - Another non-class action decision already having a significant impact on the question of standing in data privacy class actions.
8. Oxford Health Plans LLC v. Sutter, 133 S. Ct. 2064 (2013) - Class Arbitration is not completely dead, but there’s a blueprint for how to kill it.
7. American Express Co. v. Italian Colors Restaurant, 133 S. Ct. 2304 (2013)- Arbitration continues to reign supreme, even under the “federal law of arbitrability”
6. Genesis Healthcare Corp. v. Symczyk, 133 S. Ct. 1523 (2013) – Can class actions be defeated simply by picking off the representatives one at a time? That’s for the circuits to decide.
5. Amgen Inc. v. Connecticut Retirement Plans and Trust Funds, 133 S.Ct. 1184 (2013) – Supreme Court holds that materiality is a common question and that proof of materiality is not a prerequisite to class certification, but raises questions about the continued viability of the Basic fraud on the market presumption in securities cases.
4. Certiorari granted in Halliburton v. Erica P. John Fund, No 13-317 - That didn’t take long. On the heels of , Supreme Court agrees to revisit the Basic fraud on the market presumption.
3. Comcast Corp. v. Behrend, 133 S.Ct. 1426 (2013) – Limited holding = damages theory has to match theory of liability. Expansive holding = no class certification unless the question of damages is susceptible to common, classwide proof. Which holding will be embraced by the lower courts?
2. Standard Fire Ins. Co. v Knowles, 133 S. Ct. 1345 (2013) – First ever CAFA decision limits representative plaintiffs’ ability to bind class prior to class certification. Can’t avoid federal jurisdiction by stipulating to no more than $4,999,999.99 in damages on behalf of a putative class.
1. Moldy Washing Machine Decisions – Limited Comcast holding prevails so far. Two lower courts reaffirm class certification orders after remand in light of Comcast. Issue certification is alive and well, for the moment, but stay tuned to see if the Court takes up these cases in 2014.
Posted in Class Action News, CAFA Requirements, Lawyers' Resources, tagged 1332, ABA, appeal, cads, CAFA, cafa appeal, cafa exception, class action, Class Action Fairness Act, class action settlement, congress, diversity, federal court, guide, minimal diversity, practitioner, resource, settlement on October 30, 2013 | Leave a Comment »
If you’re prosecuting or defending a class action or are interested in class action developments (and I’m not sure why on Earth you would be reading this otherwise) you’ll want to know about a great new ABA publication on the Class Action Fairness Act of 2005 (CAFA). The Class Action Fairness Act, Law and Strategy, is a book of collected works written by experts on both sides of the bar and deftly edited by former ABA CADS Committee Chair Gregory C. Cook. Those familiar with CADS (the Class Actions and Derivative Suits Committee of the ABA Section of Litigation) will recognize the names of many of the knowledgeable contributors.
The book covers nearly every CAFA-related topic conceivable, from the history of CAFA to the provisions expanding federal diversity jurisdiction in class actions and the provisions regulating federal class action settlements. It can be used as a reference guide for the basic requirements of CAFA, but it also provides practical strategy tips for both plaintiffs and defendants in dealing with common and not-so-common CAFA issues. Here is a summary of the Table of Contents:
- Chapter 1 - Introduction and Overview
- Chapter 2 – CAFA in Congress: The Eight-Year Struggle
- Chapter 3 – Hey CAFA, Is that a Class Action?
- Chapter 4 – The Amount in Controversy under CAFA: Have You Got What It Takes for Federal Court?
- Chapter 5 – CAFA’s Numerosity Requirement, or How to Count from 1 to 100
- Chapter 6 – Basics of MInimal Diversity in CAFA
- Chapter 7 – Welcome to the Jungle: CAFA Exceptions
- Chapter 8 – How CAFA Expands Federal Jurisdiction to Include Certain Mass Actions
- Chapter 9 – Advanced Procedural and Strategic Considerations on Removal under CAFA
- Chapter 10 – CAFA-Related Appeals
- Chapter 11 – CAFA Settlement Provisions
Be sure to click the link on the title of the book, above, for information about how to get your copy. If you don’t have it, chances are that your opponent will!
One question that defense practitioners often face when preparing a notice of removal under the Class Action Fairness Act (CAFA) is whether they must attach affidavits or other proof of the facts submitted in support of removal at the time the removal notice is filed, or whether the submission of proof can wait until removal jurisdiction is challenged by the plaintiff.
A removal notice is a pleading that requires factual allegations but should not require verification or proof of the facts alleged, and this is how most federal courts interpret the removal statute. See, e.g., Meridian Security Insurance Co. v. Sadowski, 441 F.3d 536, 539-40 (7th Cir. 2006) (“If [the] allegations [by the party asserting jurisdiction] of jurisdictional facts are challenged by his adversary in any appropriate manner, he must support them by competent proof.”) (quoting McNutt v. General Motors Acceptance Corp., 298 U.S. 178, 189 (1936)). However, some district courts have ordered remand due to a defendant’s failure to attach affidavits or other support for those allegations to the removal notice itself. Recently, in Dart Cherokee Basin Operating Company, LLC v. Owens, the Tenth Circuit Court of Appeals refused to grant review of a decision by the U.S. District Court for the District of Kansas remanding a class action for this reason. No. 13-603 (10th Cir. Sept. 17, 2013) (refusing to grant review of Owens v. Dart Cherokee Basin Operating Co., LLC, No. 12-4157-JAR (D. Kan. May 21, 2013)). Because the votes on whether to accept review were evenly divided, the petition for review was denied.
Judge Hartz wrote a sharp dissent to the order denying review, stating “I think it is important that this court inform the district courts and the bar of this circuit that a defendant seeking removal under CAFA need only allege the jurisdictional amount in its notice of removal and must prove that amount only if the plaintiff challenges the allegation.” Nonetheless, he recognized the reality that:
After today’s decision any diligent attorney (and one can assume that an attorney representing a defendant in a case involving at least $5 million—the threshold for removal under CAFA—would have substantial incentive to be diligent) would submit to the evidentiary burden rather than take a chance on remand to state court; if so, the issue will not arise again.
Judge Hartz went on to admonish other members of the court for not being more willing to take on issues relating to CAFA removal jurisdiction, stating that
I would add a few words about our discretionary jurisdiction to review removals under CAFA. CAFA is a newcomer to the scene and its intricacies are unfamiliar to many of us. It will always be tempting for very busy judges to deny review of a knotty matter that requires a decision in short order. But we have an obligation to provide clarity in this important area of the law.
Sadly, just as it is tempting for busy appellate judges to avoid having to deal with the intricacies of CAFA jurisdiction, it is tempting for many federal trial judges to look for any excuse to help clear their civil dockets by remanding removed cases. This is of course not true of all federal trial judges, but it happens enough that the appellate courts need to step in from time to time to avoid the law from developing in a way that thwarts CAFA’s legislative purpose of expanding the availability of a federal forum to class action defendants. However, until the appellate courts decide to heed Judge Hartz’s plea to take on more of these issues, the state of the law is likely to continue to be slanted in favor of remand whenever there is the slighest doubt.
In the meantime, as Judge Hartz points out, a diligent defense attorney in the Tenth Circuit will need to submit evidentiary support along with a removal notice. The same is true of any other Circuit where the issue has not been resolved definitively by the Court of Appeals. If the law of the Circuit is clear that factual information need not be attached to the removal notice, then there can be strategic and cost-saving advantages to not attaching the information. However, if the law is not clear, then as the Dart Cherokee Basin case illustrates, a “diligent” attorney should take the safe approach and attach supporting affidavits to the removal notice.
Posted in Articles, Class Action Fairness Act, Commentary, tagged attorney fees, attorneys fees, CAFA, class action settlement, collins, consumer advocate, consumer class action, cy pres, nerdwallet on August 27, 2013 | Leave a Comment »
Editor’s Note: The following guest post was authored by Sara Collins, contributor to the consumer finance website, NerdWallet. The views expressed in Sara’s article are her own. Although those of us who tend to represent defendants in consumer class actions may not agree with all of Sara’s views on the benefits of class actions, we can certainly learn something from reading a consumer advocate’s views on the subject. The article also provides an easy-to-follow primer on how class actions work. Many thanks to Sara for her contribution.
Class Actions – Do They Actually Help Consumers?
By Sara Collins
Consumers in the United States are sometimes victims of bad business behavior. These behaviors cover a huge range of bad acts, particularly in the field of securities. Class actions allow consumers to band together and fight against bad business. As such, they have a number of benefits for consumers and are quite helpful in evening the corporation versus consumer playing field.
What are Consumer Class Actions?
A consumer class action is simply a lawsuit which takes place in a federal or state court. The case is brought by one or a small handful of individuals, acting as representatives for a larger group of consumers, known as the class. Typically the case is seeking damages on behalf of the named individuals in addition to the entire class.
Why is a Consumer Class Action Necessary?
Traditionally, class actions are used to combine small-dollar claims for a large number of people. One small claim is generally too small for a cost-effective suit. Consumer class actions offer a helpful alternative, justifying the litigation expenses and immensely improving the consumer’s odds of success, particularly when it comes to larger corporations.
How do Consumer Class Actions Work?
When a class action is first brought, the court initially decides whether it is a proper class action. This is a process known as class certification. The parties then work towards a trial, though settlement negotiations can take place at any point. If the parties decide to settle the case, the court must approve the settlement and then order notice given to class action members.
Do Class Actions Work?
They definitely do. Billions of dollars are given back to the public every year which come from consumer class actions. In most cases, the money is given directly to the victims of the suit, rather than going into the hands of the government, lawyers or other non-consumers.
What Long-Term Effects do Consumer Class Actions Cause?
Class actions help to make bad business practices unprofitable. Class actions aggregate the power of isolated consumers, allowing class actions to compete against corporate behemoths. It levels the playing field, forcing businesses to operate in honest and trustworthy ways. Markets in other countries where class actions are not allowed often suffer from corporate abuses like stock manipulation, insider trading and other problems.
Do Lawyers Benefit Excessively From Consumer Class Actions?
One argument used by businesses to protest the prevalence of consumer class actions is to claim that the lawyers benefit excessively from the cases. In fact, attorney fees in class action cases average just between 20 and 30 percent of the amount recovered. In stark comparison, personal injury lawyers typically reap 35 to 50 percent of their case winnings. Clearly businesses are using false arguments in an attempt to eliminate class actions and thus damages sought against them.
What is the Class Action Fairness Act of 2005?
The Class Action Fairness Act of 2005 (CAFA) was enacted by Congress in order to curb abuse of class action suits in state courts. Evidence showed that many class actions were being filed which benefited the counsel, rather than the consumers. Additionally, many cases were filed in courts which showed prejudice against business defendants, a problematic issue.
CAFA was enacted to extend federal jurisdiction to these state courts in order to diminish such abuses. CAFA has had a mild success and while most benefits are for businesses, some benefits are extended to consumers. Primarily, the legislation limits the monetary benefits for the attorneys. This ensures that money won in settlements goes to the members of the class, rather than the plaintiff counsel.
Consumer class actions are needed to ensure the financial safety of consumers, particularly in the realm of securities. Class actions allow consumers to band together, combining resources in order to sue a corporation as a singular entity. In turn, all consumers reap the benefits of the settlement, helping to prevent future bad behavior from the corporation in question. Class actions undoubtedly have a positive effect on the world of consumers and it is vital they stay legal for the foreseeable future.
Sara Collins is a writer for NerdWallet, a personal finance site dedicated to helping consumers learn about new ways to save money.
Posted in Class Action Decisions, Class Action News, Supreme Court Decisions, tagged attorney general, attorneys general, behrend, CAFA, class action, comcast, diversity, federal jurisdiction, glazer, moldy, parens patriae, posner, predominance, remand, removal, Supreme Court, whirlpool on June 4, 2013 | Leave a Comment »
My sincere apologies to the loyal ClassActionBlawg reader for the scarcity of new content lately. I’m on the road this week, but thought I should at least drop a note about two interesting class-action-related developments in the U.S. Supreme Court over the past week:
1) the Court granted cert in State of Mississippi v. AU Optronics Corp., to address the issue whether parens patriae actions filed by state attorneys general seeking restitution on behalf of state citizens are “mass” actions, permitting removal under the Class Action Fairness Act (CAFA). For more on the case, see Deborah Renner’s post on the BakerHostetler Class Action Lawsuit Defense Blog. If it were up to me, I’d go further and say that parens patriae cases are actually “class” actions under CAFA, but apparently the Court has its own idea about the scope of the issue.
2) The Court vacated Judge Richard Posner’s decision in Butler v. Sears Roebuck & Co. and remanded for reconsideration in light of its recent decision in Comcast Corp. v. Behrend. This follows the Court’s earlier decision to vacate the Sixth Circuit’s decision in In re Whirlpool Corp. Front-Loading Washer Products Liability Litigation for the same reason. Given the many questions left unanswered by the Comcast decision, it will be interesting to see what the Sixth and Seventh Circuits do with the moldy washer cases on remand.
Class Action CLE Recap – Insights on the 2012-13 Supreme Court Term from the Bench and Both Sides of the Bar
Posted in Class Action Trends, CLE Programs, Supreme Court Decisions, Uncategorized, tagged amgen, antitrust, basic, behrend, CAFA, class action, class certification, classwide proof, colorado, comcast, daubert, efficient market, eisen, expert, federal judge, fitzpatrick, fraud on the market, hellhole, katz, knowles, kreiger, levinson, merits, securities fraud, standard fire, stipulation on May 14, 2013 | Leave a Comment »
The Class Actions, Mass Torts and Derivative Suits Subcommittee of the Colorado Bar Association, now ably chaired by my BakerHostetler partner, Casie Collignon, held its first CLE luncheon of the year this past Friday. The program, United States Supreme Court vs. Class Actions in 2013, featured excellent commentary about the Supreme Court’s 2013 class action decisions by The Honorable Marcia Krieger, Chief Judge, U.S. District Court for the District of Colorado, Seth Katz of Burg Simpson, and John Fitzpatrick of Wheeler Trigg O’Donnell. Here are just a few of the many insightful observations made by each of the speakers:
Judge Krieger opened by observing that none of the cases this term have been a surprise from the standpoint of what a trial court judge would have expected given existing law. Amgen was predictable because the question of materiality in a securities fraud case is unquestionably a common issue, so it is not surprising that it is a question for trial, not a prerequisite for class certification. Standard Fire can be viewed as a straightforward application of agency law: a plaintiff cannot bind a class of people that he or she doesn’t yet represent. Comcast exemplifies the importance of examining the plaintiffs’ theory of liability and the relationship to the theory of loss. Damages are not the same as loss. The theory by which the plaintiff establishes loss determines the measure of damages.
When asked to identify any trends that she has been seeing in class actions recently, Judge Krieger identified issue certification as a key trend. She has been seeing more situations where the factual issues may be individualized but there are common legal issues that can be resolved classwide. She noted that she has been inclined to grant partial certification limited to the common legal issue(s) in that situation.
From the plaintiffs’ perspective, Katz agreed that the outcome of Standard Fire was not surprising, and he went as far as to say that the outcome was correct, noting that plaintiffs’ attorneys shouldn’t be afraid of the federal courts. Although the holding of Amgen was favorable to plaintiffs, Katz noted an issue that should be of great concern to plaintiffs, and that is the commentary from the conservative wing of the court suggesting that they might be willing to revisit the fraud-on-the-market presumption adopted in Basic Inc. v. Levinson. Katz sees the potential of a 4-4 split on that issue, with Chief Justice Roberts being the deciding vote. He predicts market studies being commissioned by both sides over the coming years to demonstrate or disprove the continued efficiency of the markets.
Comcast, Katz noted, caused a collective sigh of relief in the plaintiffs’ bar because it does not go as far as many would have feared by requiring Daubert hearings at the class certification phase. He noted that one positive impact for plaintiffs arising from the “death of Eisen” (the rejection in decisions like Wal-Mart and Comcast of the idea that merits questions were off-limits at the class certification phase) is that it gives plaintiffs’ counsel an opportunity to obtain merits discovery much earlier in a case than was allowed previously. On the other hand, Katz expressed fear about the possibility that the Court is trying to raise the bar for plaintiffs with a subtle change in the language about what common proof is necessary on the issue of damages. Where earlier decisions required that damages be “susceptible to classwide proof,” the Comcast majority phrased the standard as requiring the plaintiff to ”prove classwide damages.” Katz predicts that defendants will argue that this means damages must be uniform, as opposed to simply being susceptible to formulaic calculation. He noted, however, that the few lower courts that have interpreted Comcast so far have rejected a broad application of the decision.
Fitzpatrick combined philosophical commentary about the evolution of class actions with some practical tips for defense lawyers. Standard Fire, he argued, is proof that judicial hellholes still exist. He pointed to Amgen as an example of the dangers of accepting conventional wisdom, pointing out that the outcome in that case might well have been different if the defendants had stipulated to the existence of an efficient market.
Comcast, Fitzpatrick said, provides an opportunity for defendants to prevail at the class certification stage by discrediting a plaintiffs’ expert. Focus not just on the opinions themselves, he suggested, but also on 1) the existence of bias; 2) the expert’s credentials, and 3) flaws in the methodology. Scour the country for transcripts about the plaintiffs’ experts. Look at misstatements and exaggerations in the expert’s CV. Make sure you find and read all of their prior statements in books, media, and transcripts. Just as important, Fitzpatrick reminded defense practitioners, is the make sure to prepare your own experts for class certification.
Plaintiff’s Counsel Can’t Bind Class By Stipulating to $4,999,999 in Damages, Says Supreme Court in Standard Fire
Posted in Class Action Decisions, Class Action Fairness Act, Supreme Court Decisions, tagged $4, $5, 000, 1332, 5 million, 999, amount in controversy, breyer, CAFA, class action, Class Action Fairness Act, diversity, knowles, scotus, standard fire, Supreme Court on March 19, 2013 | 2 Comments »
The Supreme Court issued its first-ever decision interpreting the Class Action Fairness Act (CAFA) today, and its holding strengthens defendants’ right to a federal forum in class actions.
The question presented in Standard Fire Insurance Co. v. Knowles, No. 11-1450, slip op. (U.S., Mar. 19, 2012) was a simple one: can a plaintiff avoid federal jurisdiction under CAFA by stipulating to less than $5 million in damages on behalf of the putative class? The Court’s unanimous answer was no, and its reasoning is also simple:
Stipulations must be binding . . . [and] a plaintiff who files a proposed class action cannot legally bind members of the proposed class before the class is certified.
Slip op. at 3-4.
Does Standard Fire mean the end of any debate about the federal courts as a forum for class actions? Probably not. Justice Breyer’s well-reasoned opinion makes the issue sound like a no-brainer, but this is an issue that had been far from settled in the lower courts. The fact that the Supreme Court had to intervene on this issue is in part a symptom of a lingering antagonism by many lower federal court judges toward diversity jurisdiction. The ruling is unlikely to change the predisposition of some federal judges to look for ways to clear their dockets by remanding diversity cases to the state courts. Although the effectiveness of this particular method for avoiding CAFA jurisdiction is now settled in defendants’ favor, that is not to say that other tactics for avoiding federal jurisdiction in class actions won’t succeed in the future.
Posted in Class Action News, Class Action Trends, tagged amex, amgen, arbitrability, arbitration, bakerhostetler, behrend, CAFA, class action, class action developments, Class Action News, Class Action Trends, class arbitration waiver, collective action, comcast, data privacy, daubert, dukes, employment class action, expert witness, fraud on the market, genesis health, kiobel, knowles, oxford health, presumed reliance, reliance, rigorous analysis, securities fraud, standard fire, sutter, wal-mart, year-end review on January 28, 2013 | Leave a Comment »
I’m pleased to announce that the BakerHostetler Class Action Defense Team has just released its 2012 Year-end Review of Class Actions, a joint project with the firm’s Employment Class Actions, Antitrust, and Data Privacy practice teams. See below for a synopsis of the project. Click the link above to access a copy of the report itself:
We are pleased to share with you the BakerHostetler 2012 Year-end Review of Class Actions, which offers a summary of some of the key developments in class action litigation during the past year. Class action litigation continues to persist in all areas of civil litigation despite the Supreme Court’s 2011 decisions in AT&T Mobility v. Concepcion and in Wal-Mart Stores, Inc. v. Dukes, which were seen by many commentators as marking the beginning of the end of class actions as we know them. But while the Supreme Court’s 2011 decisions have had a significant impact on class action litigation, they have not brought about its demise and are not likely to do so anytime soon. In the last two years, we’ve seen landmark decisions and the addition of important judicial gloss to those decisions. 2013 will be no different as the Supreme Court is set to weigh in on a series of key cases this spring.
We hope you find this Review a useful tool as you move forward into the new year. This comprehensive analysis of last year’s developments in class action procedure and jurisdiction, as well as developments by subject matter will hopefully provide context and insight as you look ahead to 2013′s expected trends in class action law, including the proliferation of privacy class action litigation and class action litigation relating to the LIBOR rate-fixing scandal.