I will be speaking on a webinar panel with plaintiffs’ attorneys Keith J. Keogh and John G. Watts tomorrow discussing the latest trends in TCPA class action litigation. This is a reprise of a program we have done several times over the past few years, but we’ll be covering quite a few new developments this time around, including recent decisions on ascertainability, consent, mootness, standing, and the definition of an ATDS under the statute, as well as current and potential future FCC developments that may impact TCPA litigation in the future.
Posts Tagged ‘mootness’
Posted in Class Action Decisions, Supreme Court Decisions, tagged article III, campbell-ewald, class action, genesis healthcare, ginsburg, gomez, kennedy, moot, mootness, offer of judgment, offer of settlement, offers of judgment, registry of the court, rule 68, Supreme Court, symczyk, thomas on January 20, 2016| Leave a Comment »
The Supreme Court issued its opinion today in the first of what will be several class-action-related decisions this term. As noted in my Supreme Court preview post, the primary issue in Campbell-Ewald Co. v. Gomez, No. 14-857 was whether an unaccepted offer of complete relief to a named plaintiff in a class action had the effect of mooting the plaintiff’s claim, depriving a federal court of Article III jurisdiction. The Court said no, agreeing with the now unanimous view of the Circuit Courts of Appeals. Click this link for a copy of the slip opinion. Justice Kennedy sided with the liberal wing of the Court in supporting Justice Ginsburg’s majority opinion, with Justice Thomas concurring in the judgment. Perhaps the most interesting thing about the opinion from a practitioner’s point of view is the issue that the majority expressly decline to address despite having been discussed at some length during oral argument:
We need not, and do not, now decide whether the result would be different if a defendant deposits the full amount of the plaintiff ’s individual claim in an account payable to the plaintiff, and the court then enters judgment for the plaintiff in that amount. That question is appropriately reserved for a case in which it is not hypothetical.
So, just as we were left with a cliffhanger when the Court decided its previous case involving offers of judgment, Genesis Healthcare Corp. v. Symczyk, we’ll have to stay tuned for the third chapter of the trilogy to find out whether paying the full amount of a plaintiff’s claim into the registry of the Court moots a class action. Be on the lookout for a preview of this issue at a District Court near you.
Posted in Class Action Decisions, Supreme Court Decisions, tagged alito, behrend, bouaphakeo, campbell-ewald, class action, class certification, comcast, daubert, dukes, expert, fair credit reporting act, fcra, genesis healthcare, kennedy, mootness, no injury, picking off, robins, scalia, spokeo, standing, statistical evidence, statutory damages, Supreme Court, tyson foods, wal-mart on November 2, 2015| 2 Comments »
The October 2015 United States Supreme Court Term is already well underway, and there are several cases on the docket that could have a significant impact on class action practice. Here is a summary of the three cases this term that I think could have the biggest impact on class action practice going forward:
Campbell-Ewald Co. v. Gomez, No. 14-857
The Campbell-Ewald case addresses the tactic known as “picking-off” named plaintiffs in class actions, and deals with the question whether an offer of judgment that would provide a named plaintiff complete relief is sufficient to moot the plaintiffs’ claim, even if it is not accepted. The case follows the Court’s 2013 decision in Genesis Healthcare v. Symczyk, where the majority opinion assumed, without deciding, that an offer of judgment had mooted the named plaintiffs’ claim in an FLSA collective action, based on a finding that the issue had been waived below.
Oral argument in Campbell-Ewald was held in October. Justices Alito, Scalia, and Chief Justice Roberts all displayed open hostility to the plaintiffs’ position that she should be allowed to litigate the case even after the defendant had offered everything she hoped to achieve for herself in the case. Despite these views, however, it remains to be seen whether a majority of the court will ultimately hold that any unaccepted offer of settlement is sufficient to actually moot the plaintiffs’ claim under Article III, or whether the decision will fall short of reaching that sweeping question. Some of the questions posed by likely swing voter, Justice Kennedy, suggest that he agrees with his conservative colleagues that a litigant who has been offered full relief should not be permitted to proceed with the case, but other questions reflected a reluctance to treat an unaccepted offer the same as a judgment. This suggests that the Court’s ultimate decision could turn on a more technical procedural analysis rather than the broader and more abstract question of whether a controversy can ever exist following an offer of full relief, but of course the questions posed during oral argument do not always signal the Court’s ultimate analysis.
When the Supreme Court originally granted cert in Campbell-Ewald, there appeared to be a split in the circuits on this question, but since then, the circuits have become aligned with the view that an unaccepted offer in a proposed class action does not moot the named plaintiffs’ claims. A contrary ruling by the Supreme Court would revive a powerful tool that defendants could wield to effectively preempt many types of consumer class actions, especially those seeking statutory damages for small individual amounts.
Spokeo, Inc. v. Robins, No. 13-1339
Spokeo has been hailed as a case with the potential to end “no-injury” class actions. Ostensibly at issue is whether Congress has the power to enact legislation that gives a private plaintiff the right to seek statutory damages despite the lack of any concrete injury. A decision could therefore potentially have a significant impact on class actions brought under a variety of federal statutes that provide a private right of action to recover statutory damages upon proof of a violation, one that goes beyond the Fair Credit Reporting Act, the statute at issue in Spokeo.
However, during today’s oral argument, much of the questioning focused on whether the named plaintiff had, in fact, suffered an injury by alleging that false information had been published on his credit report, and the extent to which Congress actually intended to limit the private right of action under the Fair Credit Reporting Act to persons who could show an actual injury. It seems likely that the outcome of the case will turn on the majority’s view of those two factors.
Tyson Foods, Inc. v. Bouaphakeo, No. 14-1146
Tyson Foods offers the Court an opportunity to further elaborate on the concept of “trial by formula”, discussed in Justice Scalia’s 2011 opinion in Wal-Mart Stores, Inc. v. Dukes, as well as the standards governing expert testimony at the class certification phase, which the Court touched upon but did not ultimately address directly in both Wal-Mart and again in the 2013 decision in Comcast Corp. v. Behrend. It also raises the question whether it is ever proper to certify a damages class that includes individual plaintiffs that undisputedly lack any injury or damages.
Specifically, the Court granted certiorari on the following two questions:
I. Whether differences among individual class members may be ignored and a class action certified under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23(b)(3), or a collective action certified under the Fair Labor Standards Act, where liability and damages will be determined with statistical techniques that presume all class members are identical to the average observed in a sample; and
II. Whether a class action may be certified or maintained under Rule 23(b)(3), or a collective action certified or maintained under the Fair Labor Standards Act, when the class contains hundreds of members who were not injured and have no legal right to any damages.
Oral argument in Tyson Foods is set for next Monday, November 10.
Posted in class action reform, Reports and Surveys, rule 23, tagged advisory committee, class action, cy pres, issue class, mootness, notice, objector, rule 23, rule 68, settlement approval criteria, settlement class certification on April 16, 2015| Leave a Comment »
Last week, the Rule 23 Subcommittee to the Advisory Committee on Rules of Civil Procedure issued its latest report outlining potential revisions to Rule 23, Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. Click the following link to view the Rule 23 Subcommittee Report. Generally, the topics addressed in the Subcommittee’s Report are as follows:
- Settlement Approval Criteria
- Settlement Class Certification
- Cy Pres Treatment
- Dealing with Objectors
- Rule 68 Offers and Mootness
- Issue Classes
If you’d like an opportunity to give feedback to Subommittee in person, make sure to sign up for the upcoming Second Annual Western Regional CLE Program on Class Actions and Mass Torts, scheduled for June 19 in San Francisco, where several Subcommittee members will be on hand to discuss the report and receive comments in a town hall-style discussion.
Also, I will be among several contributors to an upcoming commentary on the report to be published by the ABA’s CADS Committee. My submission will address the Subcommittee’s suggestions on Issue Classes. Stay tuned for more information about that publication.
Picking Off Class Representatives Through Individual Settlements: Failsafe Strategy or Exercise in Futility?
Posted in Articles, Practice Tips, tagged class action, class action tactic, class certification, damasco, gates, holstein, individual settlement, lucero, moot, mootness, pick off, picking off, pitts, russell, sandoz, weiss on June 8, 2012| Leave a Comment »
The latest issue of the ABA Section of Litigation magazine Litigation News has a very useful article for class action practitioners entitled Mooting the Class. The article is authored by Litigation News Associate Editor John W. Joyce.
The article discusses the various approaches taken in different federal circuits in determining whether settlement with the named class representative renders a class action moot. The article also includes some helpful practice tips on the subject from seasoned class action practitioners on both sides of the bar. If you are a defendant considering this tactic, or a plaintiff trying to prevent it, you’d be wise to read this article.