Legal Action Newslettergeorge
The alleged class action lawsuits referred to Federal Court under the Class Action Fairness Act (CAFA) were referred to state court under CAFA`s autonomy exemption because two-thirds or more of the alleged class members were citizens of Massachusetts. The decision of a Missouri federal court in Burnett v. National Association of Realtors, currently under appeal, suggests that the right to arbitration cannot be exercised piecemeal in the context of class actions – but a number of case law may guide what happens when named plaintiffs have no agreements but alleged class members. say Stephen Safranski and Ryan Marth of Robins Kaplan. Mark Turner sued his auto insurance company, GoAuto Insurance Company, complaining that he had underpaid insurance benefits under his policy and Louisiana law. Turner modified and later converted the lawsuit into a class action lawsuit by defining the class as „Louisiana residents“ in a similar situation. Turner changed again to redefine the class from „Louisiana residents“ to „Louisiana citizens.“ Two days later, GoAuto was withdrawn under CAFA. After the referral, the parties disputed which complaint had been affected and whether the deportation was sufficient. The district court dismissed the case, ruling that GoAuto, as a citizen of Louisiana, could not boast minimal diversity. Second, the General Court dismissed the applicant`s action against the VPPA without prejudice. The plaintiff alleged that Triller violated the VPA by: (1) sharing information about users` video playback history with others, including other information that could be used to assign playback history to a specific individual; and (2) storing a user`s „personally identifiable information“ (PII). The court noted that the VPPA is „not well worded.“ The court adopted a narrow definition of personal information and found that the applicant had not alleged that Triller had disclosed his personal information and that this request should be dismissed.
Although the plaintiff acknowledged that the information disclosed by Triller was „anonymized,“ the court concluded that it was not sufficient for a third party to combine it with other information to infer the true identity of the individual associated with the data, as the „scope of personal information would be unlimited.“ The court also rejected the plaintiff`s argument that Triller had violated the FPPA by failing to destroy personal information as quickly as possible, since the FPPA does not provide a private right of action for a breach of this provision. The District Court granted the plaintiff`s request to remit an alleged class action lawsuit alleging that the defendant`s assisted care facilities violated state law by calculating, collecting, and processing fees and deposits from current and former residents of their facilities. The court considered CAFA`s home state exception, which requires a district court to decline jurisdiction over an alleged class action if the lead defendants and two-thirds or more of the members of all proposed classes are collectively citizens of the state in which the lawsuit was originally initiated. In this case, the alleged group included tenants who currently reside or have resided in assisted living facilities owned, operated and/or managed by the defendant in Massachusetts. Although the First Circuit had not yet ruled on the applicant`s burden of proof to prove citizenship, the district court found that the applicant had presented sufficient evidence to conclude that on a „balance of probabilities“ or the „reasonable probability“ standard, two-thirds or more of the alleged class members reside in Massachusetts. The forensic discovery revealed that only 59 of the 436 alleged members of the group had a last known address unknown, and the rest could be traced back to Massachusetts. The Court found that the fact, combined with the lack of mobility of the proposed category, the defendant`s exclusive access to relevant information, the absence of information on factors external to the domicile in determining the residence of the alleged members of the group and the absence of members for whom the defendant had positive evidence of residence outside the State, justified the conclusion that the autonomy exception was applicable. The plaintiff filed a class action lawsuit for securities fraud under Section 10(b) of the Securities Exchange Act and for controlling party liability under Section 20(a) of the Exchange Act.
The complaint identified 138 allegedly false or misleading statements about the merger made during the collection period. The District Court dismissed the action with prejudice and dismissed the plaintiff`s application for approval of the amendment. A federal judge in Colorado has finally approved a $3.9 million settlement in a securities class action lawsuit against Colorado hydraulic fracturing company Liberty Oilfield Services and a number of banks related to Liberty`s $220 million IPO in 2018. An institution that places au pairs with foster families in the United States has sought an injunction against an au pair from Spain who had filed a class arbitration claim. The au pair signed an agreement with the Institute containing the following arbitration clause: „I accept any dispute with [the Institute] or any claim against [the Institute]. shall be decided exclusively by binding arbitration [.] The agreement also provided that the au pair waived the right to „bring claims individually or as a member of a class action by any means and in any form other than arbitration.“ The parties agreed that the agreement required the au pair to submit individual claims to arbitration, but challenged the availability of collective arbitration. The addition of named plaintiffs from a prior purported federal class action as named plaintiffs in a subsequent and existing alleged class action lawsuit consolidated with the first case is not precluded under China Agritech v. Resh. After purchasing a product labeled „oil-free,“ the plaintiff allegedly discovered that the product had been mislabeled and filed a class action lawsuit against the defendant retailer for common law fraud, unjust enrichment, breach of warranties, and violation of various state consumer fraud laws.
Although he purchased only one product, the plaintiff included in his complaint 12 other products that he claimed were also mislabelled. The respondent filed an application under Rule 12(c) for a decision on the pleadings, arguing that the plaintiff was not entitled to pursue some of his claims. A finance professor who says Texas A&M University illegally discriminates against white and Asian men in their hiring practices asked a federal judge in Texas on Friday to certify a class of Ph.D. holders who may one day apply for college jobs. The Seventh Judicial District upholds the dismissal of antitrust class action lawsuits for an alleged star conspiracy in which the harm was not attributable to the defendants and the products were not purchased from either department of the conspiracy. The plaintiffs filed a sex discrimination class action lawsuit in violation of Title IX of the Education (Amendment) Act 1972. Following a court case, the District Court found that the university had failed to meet the requirements of Title IX for the allocation of athletic facilities, treatments and benefits and filed an action for declaratory judgment. Specifically, the District Court found that the university has divided its support for various sports into three levels and that treatment and benefits are not equitable because fewer women receive Level 1 support. The court admitted that the university had divided its support for various sports into three levels, noting that the district court had wrongly relied on the levels to conclude that the university had unfairly distributed the treatment and benefits globally.
The Eighth District ruled that the District Court was required to analyze how the university distributes treatment and benefits throughout the program, rather than level by level.