class action trends and developments n.
Download
Skip this Video
Loading SlideShow in 5 Seconds..
Class Action Trends and Developments PowerPoint Presentation
Download Presentation
Class Action Trends and Developments

Loading in 2 Seconds...

play fullscreen
1 / 7

Class Action Trends and Developments - PowerPoint PPT Presentation


  • 112 Views
  • Uploaded on

Class Action Trends and Developments. CERTIFICATION. 26(a) Numerosity Commonality Typicality Adequacy. 26(b)(3) *Predominance Superior Method. Dukes v. Wal-Mart Common questions & Common answers Rigorous analysis; may overlap merits. Pre-Certification. Post-Certification

loader
I am the owner, or an agent authorized to act on behalf of the owner, of the copyrighted work described.
capcha
Download Presentation

PowerPoint Slideshow about 'Class Action Trends and Developments' - giorgio-lunney


An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation

Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author.While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server.


- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - E N D - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Presentation Transcript
slide2

CERTIFICATION

  • 26(a)
  • Numerosity
  • Commonality
  • Typicality
  • Adequacy
  • 26(b)(3)
  • *Predominance
  • Superior Method
  • Dukes v. Wal-Mart
  • Common questions & Common answers
  • Rigorous analysis; may overlap merits

Pre-Certification

  • Post-Certification
  • Sufficiency of proof
  • Ability to calculate damages
  • Viability of claims

*Recognizes if not decided pre-certification, not likely decided at all

slide3

CERTIFICATION

  • Dukes v. Wal-Mart
  • Common questions & Common answers
  • Rigorous analysis; may overlap merits
  • Glazer v. Whirlpool (6th Circuit 2012)
  • Cited Dukes, Accepted Pls.' Proof;
  • Ignored Defense Evidence
  • Comcast (3rd Circuit) – SCOTUS
  • "Without resolving whether … evidence … susceptible to awarding damages on a class-wide basis”
  • Butler v. Sears (7th Circuit 2012)
  • No mention of Dukes; Cites Glazer
  • Predominance = Efficiency
  • Defer Injury, causation, damages

Extent Daubert applies to class cert.

Extent court must consider merits issues

Extent individual adjudication of damages makes class cert inappropriate.

  • Tait v. Bosch (C.D. Cal. 2012)
  • Misuse Irrelevant to Design Defect Claims
  • Defendants Offered No Evidence
  • Amgen (9th Circuit) – SCOTUS
  • Must Plaintiffs prove materiality in order to obtain class certification?

Key Idea: Rigorous analysis cuts both ways; develop substantive record for class certification proceedings

slide4

No Injury Class Actions

  • Creating claims where none exist
    • Risk of harm, but defect not yet manifest
    • Rely on non-forum law (Glazer & Tait)
  • "Creative" damages theories
    • Premium price
    • Benefit of the bargain

Creating confusion about "injury" vs. "damages"

Failure to Disclose

Misrepresentation

Forum Law

Hodgepodge of laws

slide5

No Injury Class Actions

  • Confusion about "injury" vs. "damage"

"No injury" cert. granted

"No injury" cert. denied

  • Bifurcate: Certify Liability; Defer Damages
  • Glazer & Butler “justifications”
  • Suasponte"premium price" theory.
  • Defs should "welcome" possible win . . .
  • Address “no injury” at damages phase
  • Toyota Hybrid Brake Mktg(C.D. Cal. 2012) (same as Tait v. Bosch)
  • If, after certification, still need to filter out “no injury" class members, NO commonality or predominance.
  • "Merely offering a creative damages theory does not establish the actual injury that is required to prevail on their product liability claims."

*Comcast may clarify these issues.

slide6

CLASS ARBITRATION

Does arbitration clause cover class action?

Class action waivers

  • Stolt-Nielson – Arbitration panel must interpret the contract, not impose policy.
  • AT&T Mobility v. Conception – FAA preempts state law attempt to invalidate class waivers
  • Sutter v. Oxford Health –"no civil action concerning any dispute arising under this Agreement shall be instituted before any court ..."
  • Italian Colors v. AmEx – SCOTUS review holding that waiver not enforceable if forfeits federal rights
  • Ferney v. Dell (Mass. Sup. Ct.) – Cannot deprive plaintiffs of meaningful course of action
  • Take aways:
  • Expressly reference class action
  • Provide method for resolving dispute.
  • Employment agreements get closer scrutiny.