Feeds:
Posts
Comments

Posts Tagged ‘commonality’

Along with leading Colorado Employment attorney Todd J. McNamara, I’ll be presenting at a breakfast seminar at the CBA-CLE next Tuesday with the (hopefully) self-explanatory title: Wal-Mart v. Dukes: Reshaping Class Certification.   The particulars follow below.  Hope to see you there!

When:

July 12, 2011 8:30 AM – 9:30 AM

Where:

CLECI Large Classroom
1900 Grant Street, Suite 300
Denver CO 80203
(303) 860-0608

Credits:

General credits: 1.00

Prices

CBA Member $59.00
CBA Labor & Employment Section Member $29.00
CBA Litigation Section Member $29.00
Non Member $69.00
 
July 2011
 
Wal-Mart v. Dukes: Reshaping Class CertificationLIVE IN DENVER
 
 
Program Description:
 
When it issued its decision in Wal-Mart Stores, Inc. v. Dukes, the Supreme Court did much more than simply end one of the largest class action suits in American history. It also set a host of new ground rules for federal courts to evaluate class certification, both in employment discrimination cases and in other types of class actions. This program will discuss the significant potential impacts of this landmark decision on a host of issues, including 1) evaluation of merits issues at the class certification stage; 2) the potentially broadened scope of the commonality element of FRCP 23(a); 3) the standards for evaluating expert testimony at the class certification stage; 4) the threshold standard needed to establish “common proof” of an employment or other business practice; 5) the use of statistical evidence in support of class certification; and 6) the standards for adjudicating claims for monetary relief under FRCP 23(b)(2). The program will examine what the Court had to say about these and other topics, and it will also explore the questions that remain unanswered following the decision.
 
Presented by Paul G. Karlsgodt, Esq. and Todd J. McNamara, Esq.
 
Agenda:
8:00 am – 8:30 am Registration
8:30 am – 9:30 am Program (Continental Breakfast Provided)
 
 
Faculty:
 
Paul G. Karlsgodt, Esq.
Baker Hostetler
 
Paul Karlsgodt is a litigation partner whose practice emphasizes class action defense and other complex commercial litigation. Mr. Karlsgodt has represented insurance companies and other FORTUNE 500 companies in numerous nationwide and statewide consumer class action lawsuits and related litigation. He has represented clients in class action lawsuits involving sales and marketing practices, insurance coverage, claims adjustment practices, corporate securities, retailer/dealer disputes, employment and taxation.
 
Mr. Karlsgodt is editor and primary contributor to the legal blog, http://www.ClassActionBlawg.com, which covers a variety of class action-related issues, including decisions, trends, best practices, news and reform, both in the U.S. and throughout the world. He also founded and served as the first Chair of the Class Actions, Derivative Suits and Mass Torts Subsection of the Litigation Section of the Colorado Bar Association. He remains an active member of the Subsection.
 
 
Todd J. McNamara, Esq.
McNamara Roseman & Kazmierski LLP
 
 
Todd McNamara opened his own firm in 1995 and limits his practice exclusively to employment law matters. Mr. McNamara was lead private class counsel in Wilkerson, et al., v. Martin-Marietta, the largest age discrimination claim brought within the State of Colorado, which settled for a reported $7.6 million. Mr. McNamara secured the first race discrimination verdict in the United States against a real estate franchise for failure to award a sales agency to an African-American in Tyler v. ReMax. Most recently, Mr. McNamara, together with class cocounsel, settled a $3.85 million disability discrimination case against the United States Postal Services.
 
Todd has previously served as co-chair of the Colorado Bar Association Labor Law Committee, and is a member of the National Employment Lawyers Association. He serves as an arbitrator and mediator for the American Arbitration Association Employment Panel. He is co-editor of FederalEmployment Jury Instructions and has just recently completed a seventh supplement to that publication, which is used throughout the United States by both lawyers and judges. He is a co-chapter editor with the Practitioners Guide to Colorado Employment Law and has published a number of other articles on employment law issues in both Trial Talk and The Colorado Lawyer. Todd is a Fellow of The College of Labor and Employment Lawyers, one of approximately only 20 in Colorado.

Read Full Post »

The Wal-Mart v. Dukes argument was held as scheduled today.  Here is a Wal-Mart v. Dukes Oral Argument Transcript.  Some initial observations:

  • The beginning of the defendant’s argument was focused on the proper standard for reviewing whether the plaintiff had sufficiently common evidence of a uniform policy.
  • It was not until later in the defendant’s argument that the questioning turned to the question certified for review: whether a Rule 23(b)(2) class action should be certified in a class action seeking monetary relief in the form of back pay.  Questioning on this issue continued into the plaintiff’s argument, but then returned to questions of what standard should apply more generally in certifying an employment discrimination class action.
  • On balance, the tougher questioning of the defendant’s attorney was from the more liberal faction of the court, and the tougher question of the plaintiff’s attorney was from the more conservative faction of the court. 
  • However, to the extent the questions can be a sign of a potential split in the Court (always a dangerous assumption), it is interesting that Justice Ginsburg seemed particularly troubled by the plaintiff’s position on the applicability of Rule 23(b)(2) to the back pay claims.
  • Overall, the sentiment seemed to be against allowing Rule 23(b)(2) to be used as a vehicle to resolve individual back pay claims (again, recognizing that the nature and tone of oral argument questions is not a very reliable way to predict outcomes).  However, there seemed to be some support among several Justices for the possibility that a case could be certified under Rule 23(b)(2) for injunctive relief only, on the ground that hiring policies are discriminatory because they are excessively subjective.

Read Full Post »

The Indianapolis Star reported yesterday on a class certified in a case filed in Marion County, Indiana against the Hoosier Lottery alleging that the lottery defrauded purchasers of its Cash Blast scratch game tickets by misrepresenting the odds of winning the top prizes after most of those prizes had already been awarded.

I haven’t been able to hunt down a copy of Judge Gerald Zore’s opinion, but based on the descriptions of the order in the Star article, there are a couple of potentially troubling aspects to the case.  First, the court reportedly based the certification decision in part on 49 affidavits from people saying that they bought tickets “because they thought there were more prizes than existed.”  Based on the Star’s description of the allegations in the case, the argument is that tickets continued to be sold with no change in the description of the odds even after most of the larger money prizes had already been claimed.  However, it does not appear that this left purchasers without the opportunity to win any prize at all.  Consequently, this does not appear to be the type of fraud case where the plaintiffs will be able to prove that no reasonable person would ever have bought a lottery ticket if the true odds had been made known.  Common sense and experience suggests that there were probably thousands of people who bought tickets without a thought for the odds.  If so, it is curious that the court would find relevant the fact that 49 affiants said that they did rely on the advertised odds in deciding to buy a ticket.  Certainly, there would be some purchasers who relied on the published odds, and others who did not.  Individualized reliance and causation issues would seem to come in to play in this case just as in most other consumer fraud class actions.

Second, one of the named plaintiffs, Jeff Frazer, reportedly paid $40,000 for 4,000 $10 tickets and considered his purchases an “investment” based on the advertised odds.  His co-plaintiff, Jeff Koehlinger, paid another $2,470 for tickets.  It’s hard to imagine how the court was able to get around the significant typicality and adequacy problems seemingly inherent in these individuals trying to represent a class of lottery scratch game buyers.

See this MSNBC link for more on Mr. Frazer’s story.  The blog WalletPop has a commentary on broader societal implications that this case brings to light about the human cost of state-sponsored gambling.

Read Full Post »

« Newer Posts