Tag Archives: Rule 23

Supreme Court Limits Review of Certification Denials

One of the difficulties of class action litigation that continues to vex employers is the frequent inability to obtain meaningful review of certification decisions. Because, the reasoning goes, certification orders are interlocutory in nature, there is no right of immediate review. While since 1998 there has been the potential for review of orders granting or … Continue Reading

Court Refuses to Certify Class Due to Lack of Adequacy of Class Counsel

Class action litigation is not for amateurs We’ve commented before in this blog on cases in which courts declined to certify employment actions due to adequacy of class counsel. A recent case reflects that some courts will look not only to the presence or absence of conflicts or litigation misconduct but also to the plaintiffs’ counsel’s … Continue Reading

Third Circuit Rejects Procedural Runarounds to Appeal Decertification of FLSA Collective Action

What’s good for the goose … We’ve written many times in this blog about the two-step procedure used by many courts in Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA) cases in collective actions. The first step is to provide notice to the proposed class and is typically decided under a lenient standard. If the court “conditionally certifies” … Continue Reading

Ninth Circuit Grants 23(f) Review of Denial of Class Certification for Inadequate Representation

We’re all familiar with the basic requirements of Rule 23(a), with the focus most frequently on the issues of commonality and typicality under Rules 23(a)(2) and (3). Numerosity under Rule 23(a)(1) can on occasion be an issue with smaller groups of claimants, but adequacy of representation under Rule 23(a)(4) is not often litigated. In Kaur v. … Continue Reading

Tyson Foods, Inc. v. Bouaphakeo: The Supreme Court Produces a Narrow Holding Involving FLSA Precedent and Rule 23 Principles

Employees have been bringing wage-and-hour collective actions since long before class procedures were officially integrated into the Federal Rules of Civil Procedures in 1966. Section 16(b) of the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA) permitted collective actions when it was passed in 1938. In 1946, the Supreme Court in Anderson v. Mt. Clemens Pottery Co., 328 … Continue Reading

District Judge Allows Rail Union to Side Step Rule 23 with Pattern-Or-Practice Claim

A federal district judge in Hammond, Indiana, has permitted a rail union to pursue injunctive remedies in a Title VII pattern-or-practice discrimination claim on behalf of its black members without compliance with Rule 23.  In Brotherhood of Maintenance of Way Employees v. Ind. Harbor Belt R.R. Co., (Case No. 2:13-cv-00018, 2014 WL 4987972,October 7, 2014), … Continue Reading

Eighth Circuit Affirms Summary Judgment On Overtime Claims For Class of Tax Professionals

Relatively few FLSA cases are certified and then reach a court of appeals on the merits, but that recently happened before the Eighth Circuit.  In Petroski v. H&R Block Enterprises, LLC, Case No. 13-2076 (8th Cir. May 2, 2014), the plaintiffs were tax preparers who worked for H&R Block.  They brought suit under the FLSA … Continue Reading

Ninth Circuit “Chases” Away Another Option for Removing PAGA Actions to Federal Court

Authored By: Jeffrey Bils In yet another setback for employers seeking to remove California wage and hour cases to federal court, the Ninth Circuit held that the federal Class Action Fairness Act (“CAFA”) provides federal courts with no basis to assert jurisdiction over suits filed under the California Labor Code Private Attorneys General Act (“PAGA”) … Continue Reading

Moldy Washing Machines at the Supreme Court: A Platform for Further Development of Rule 23?

Co-Authored By: Dustin M. Dow Three cases about moldy washing machines currently sit at the U.S. Supreme Court, waiting for their names to be called.  The cases are nearly identical consumer products class actions, and they have enormous potential to shape the parameters of class action jurisprudence—if only they could get their day in court. … Continue Reading

California District Court Disqualifies Class Counsel for Conflict of Interest

Is more of a good thing a better thing?  In some contexts, not, as reflected by a recent case from the Northern District of California.  In Lou v. Ma Laboratories, Inc., Case No. C 12-05409 WHA (N.D. Cal. Jan. 8, 2014), the plaintiffs brought two class or collective actions against the same employer for claimed … Continue Reading

Court Denies Certification of California Rest and Meal Period Class Against Apple

Another court has denied certification of a rest and meal period case under California law, this one relying at least in part on the Supreme Court’s recent decision in Wal-Mart Stores, Inc. v. Dukes, Case No. 10-277, 564 U.S.___ (Jun. 20, 2011).  While many courts are simply staying California rest/meal period cases pending the outcome, if there ever … Continue Reading
LexBlog