Class Actions Blog

Posts Tagged ‘SCOTUS’

U.S. Supreme Court Delays Argument On NLRB Class Action Waiver Issue Until Late 2017 or 2018

Posted on: February 9th, 2017 by Steve Larson

On Friday, January 13, the U.S. Supreme Court agreed to resolve a conflict between the circuits as to whether class action waivers violated the National Labor Relations Act.  It accepted three of the cases for review: the 5th Circuit’s Murphy Oil case, the 7th Circuit’s Epic Systems case, and the 9th Circuit’s Ernst & Young case. The cases will be consolidated for purposes of oral argument and final written opinion.

That argument will not take place until October 2017 at the earliest, which means there will likely be no final decision until late 2017 or early 2018.  Many speculate that the delay was to allow U.S. Supreme Court nominee Gorsuch to be seated to participate in the decision.


Supreme court takes middle road in Spokeo case

Posted on: May 23rd, 2016 by Steve Larson

Consumer ProtectionOn May 16, 2016, the U.S. Supreme remanded back to the Ninth Circuit for further analysis the Robins v. Spokeo case.   The case involved a class action lawsuit filed by plaintiff Thomas Robins, who alleged that almost everything in the people-search website’s profile of him was inaccurate, including that he was a wealthy married man with children.  He sued under the federal Fair Credit Reporting Act, which requires consumer-reporting agencies to take reasonable steps to assure the accuracy of the information they publish. Companies that willfully violate the act can be liable for actual damages or $1,000 per violation. A consumer also can seek punitive damages. Read more…


New Yorker: Justice Scalia’s Corporate Influence

Posted on: April 15th, 2016 by Steve Larson

US Supreme CourtNew Yorker magazine has a very good article on how Scalia’s replacement may have a big impact on class actions.

Here is the link:


U.S. Supreme Court rules in favor of class actions in Tyson Foods case

Posted on: March 25th, 2016 by Steve Larson

justiceThe U.S. Chamber of Commerce and other Big Businesses had hoped that the U.S. Supreme Court would further undercut class actions in a class action against Tyson Foods being considered by the court.  Contrary to the hopes of Tyson Foods and the various amici that filed briefs in support of Tyson’s position, the Supreme Court on March 22, ruled that it is acceptable for trial courts to allow the use of statistical estimates when establishing liability in multiparty cases against companies.  Tyson Foods had asked the court to limit claims to only those that could prove individual injuries.

The decision was 6-2, and expressly stated that lawyers for corporations had read too much into recent precedents curbing class-action litigation, like Dukes v. Wal-Mart.  Read more…


U.S. Supreme Court rules that unaccepted offer of settlement does not moot class action case

Posted on: January 21st, 2016 by Keith Dubanevich

US Supreme CourtYesterday the U.S. Supreme Court ruled that an unaccepted settlement offer or offer of judgment does not moot a plaintiff’s case.  Campbell-Ewald Co. v Gomez, 577 U.S. ___ (January 20, 2016).  As a consequence the District Court retained jurisdiction to adjudicate Gomez’s complaint.  Read more…


U.S. Supreme Court refuses request to force class action into arbitration

Posted on: January 15th, 2016 by Keith Dubanevich

fine printOn January 11, 2016, the U.S. Supreme Court refused to grant review of a decision from the Tenth Circuit Court of Appeals that had upheld a trial court’s denial of a motion to compel arbitration. Cox Communications, Inc. v. Healy, Richard, Case No. 15-466.

The Tenth Circuit had previously rejected Cox’s bid to force an on-going multidistrict litigation into arbitration.  The dispute dates back to 2009, when several of Cox’s premium cable subscribers filed suits against the company for allegedly tying the service to set-top box rentals.

Upholding an Oklahoma judge’s decision to deny arbitration, the Tenth Circuit said that by letting “extensive” pretrial discovery and ample motion practice occur before it pointed to an arbitration clause in its customer contracts, the company waived its right to compel arbitration.

In the opinion Circuit Judge Carlos F. Lucero said that Cox was “essentially asking for a redo” of the trial court’s decision to grant the plaintiffs’ motion for class certification after the trial court had conducted a laborious analysis under Rule 23 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. The opinion blasted the arbitration request by suggesting it would have led to a waste of “a copious amount of judicial resources *** at great expense to the public.”

Judge Lucero added: “Cox’s complete failure to mention the presence of its arbitration contracts, despite the obvious impact that they would have on the court’s Rule 23 analysis, is clearly inconsistent with an intent to arbitrate.”


Legal Disclaimer

The information contained in this blog does not constitute legal advice, and does not create an attorney-client relationship. We make no claims, promises or guarantees about the accuracy, completeness, or adequacy of the information contained in or linked to this blog.

About Class Actions:

About this blog

This blog is intended to provide information to the general public and to practitioners about developments that may impact Oregon class actions.

About the author

  • Steve Larson

  • Keith Dubanevich
  • Steve Larson has been representing investors, consumers and employees in class actions in Oregon for over 20 years. He is a shareholder at the law firm of Stoll Berne in Portland, Oregon.
Follow stollberne on Twitter

Subscribe to this blog