I’m pleased to announce that I’ll be co-chairing an ABA Regional CLE conference on June 19 in San Francisco. The program is being organized jointly by the Class Actions and Derivative Suits, Mass Torts, and Consumer Litigation Committees of the ABA’s litigation section. We’ve put together some top-notch panels on some very timely topics and we hope to see you there. See below for a program synopsis. Click here for more information and to register.
This half-day CLE event will explore selected key issues in consumer class action and mass tort litigation and the roles played by claimants, defendants, other stakeholders, and decision makers in bringing and resolving class actions and mass disputes. Our all-star panels will cover a variety of topics, all focused around this common theme, including legal ethics, data privacy, and cutting-edge case management and dispute resolution procedures. This program is a can’t-miss event for lawyers, judges, policymakers, and academics alike.
University of San Francisco Law School
2130 Fulton Street
San Francisco, CA 94117
Event Date & Time
June 19, 2014
12 p.m.–7 p.m.
Section of Litigation Members and Government Attorneys: $125
Non-Section Member: $185
Read Full Post »
Posted in Class Action Decisions, Class Arbitration Waivers, tagged arbitration, class action, class arbitration, death by discovery, FAA, ferrellgas, howard, summary trial, tenth circuit on April 9, 2014|
Leave a Comment »
Editor’s Note: One of my colleagues, bankruptcy attorney Lars Fuller, sent me the following note this afternoon about a recent Tenth Circuit decision Howard v. Ferrellgas Partners LP discussing class arbitration waivers, which he thought would be of interest to readers of this blog. Here are the insights that Lars had to offer about the decision (click the link on the case name above for a copy of the opinion):
Attached is an opinion written by 10th Circuit Judge Neil Gorsuch (easily the most entertaining writer on the 10th Circuit), and addresses an issue you likely encounter, i.e., mandatory arbitration arising out of an attempted class action. The 10th Circuit reverses the U.S. District Court (Kansas) after the district court summarily denied arbitration following over a year of discovery on the issue of whether mandatory arbitration applied pursuant to the terms of the governing contract. Judge Gorsuch is refreshingly frank in his critique of the U.S. District: “The [FAA] calls for a summary trial–not death by discovery.” He also summarizes the dispute as being plagued by “venue miseries.”
The contract analysis is very interesting, with potentially an oral contract, subsequently modified in writing, or not. Judging from the Tenth Circuit analysis, the facts would constitute a very challenging law school or bar exam question. Here’s the crux:
[C]ritical questions of fact still remain on the threshold question whether they agreed to arbitrate. We know Mr. Howard called Ferrellgas to order propane to heat his home. We know Ferrellgas agreed to sell him some. But much more than that remains unclear even now. Did the parties form a final and complete oral contract in that initial phone call governing all their propane dealings over the next few years? Or did their agreement cover only Mr. Howard’s propane tank rental and its initial fill, in this way perhaps leaving room for Ferrellgas’s later-delivered, arbitration-clause-containing form contract to govern the parties’ subsequent dealings, including the later propane purchases at issue in this case? Whether this case belongs in arbitration or litigation hinges on the answers to factual questions like these.
The subsequent analysis expands on the challenges these facts present to contract analysis. The opinion also addresses the apparently controversial “rolling theory of contract formation” (apparently “about as controversial an idea as exists today in the staid world of contract law”), along with the Byzantine choice of law arena.
Read Full Post »
Posted in CAFA Requirements, Class Action Decisions, Class Action News, Supreme Court Decisions, tagged au optronics, CAFA, CAFA removal, class action, Class Action Fairness Act, dart cherokee, diversity, federal jurisdiction, iqbal, knowles, owens, parens patriae, pleading standard, removal, scotus, standard fire, standard of review, Supreme Court, twombly on April 7, 2014|
Leave a Comment »
Earlier today, the Supreme Court granted cert in Dart Cherokee Basin Operating Company, LLC v. Owens, No. 13-719, in which it will take up the contours of the standard for providing factual support in a notice of removal under the Class Action Fairness Act of 2005 (CAFA). Specifically, the issue presented is as follows:
Whether a defendant seeking removal to federal court is required to include evidence supporting federal jurisdiction in the notice of removal, or is alleging the required “short and plain statement of the grounds for removal” enough?
This is the third CAFA removal case that the Court has accepted in as many years. During the October 2012 term, the Court decided Standard Fire Ins. Co. v Knowles, 133 S. Ct. 1345 (2013), in which it held that a class representative may not avoid CAFA jurisdiction by stipulating to a recovery of damages of less than $5,000,000 on behalf of members of the proposed class. Earlier in the current term, the Court decided Mississippi ex rel. Jim Hood v. AU Optronics Corp., Case No. 12-1036 (U.S. Jan. 14, 2014), holding that a parens patriae action brought by a state attorney general on behalf of Mississippi residents was not a “mass action” subject to CAFA.
Read Full Post »