Groundbreaking Decisions

Pennsylvania Supreme Court gives green light to class actions

February 9, 2015 by

A Pennsylvania Supreme Court decision in mid-December upholding a nearly $188 million judgment against Wal-Mart Stores Inc. for denying breaks to its workers signals a split with federal courts over standards for bringing class actions, and could cause new claims to be pursued in the state court system.

U.S. Supreme Court holds parens patriae actions are not mass actions subject to CAFA

February 20, 2014 by

The U.S. Supreme Court issued its first class-action-related decision of the 2013-14 term.  In Mississippi ex rel. Jim Hood v. AU Optronics Corp., Case No. 12-1036 (U.S. Jan. 14, 2014), the Court held that a parens patriae action brought by the Mississippi attorney general on behalf of Missouri citizens was not a “mass action” subject to the

U.S. Supreme Court to tackle requirements for fraud-on-the-market theory in securities class actions

June 21, 2012 by

The United States Supreme Court granted certiorari today in Amgen Inc. v. Connecticut Retirement Plans and Trust Funds, No. 11-1085, to address the requirements for certifying a securities class action based on the “fraud-on-the-market” theory of reliance.  The “fraud-on-the-market” theory involves allegations that public misrepresentations or omissions adversely affected the market price of a stock

U.S. Supreme Court reverses Wal-Mart, Inc. v. Dukes

June 20, 2011 by

On June 20, 2011, the U.S. Supreme Court in Wal-Mart, Inc. v. Dukes reversed a class certification order in a class action lawsuit against Wal-Mart filed on behalf of current and former female employees of Wal-Mart.  As reported earlier on this blog, the trial court had  certified a class representing approximately 1.5 million female employees

Justice Scalia ignores text of Federal Arbitration Act

May 11, 2011 by

I recently posted the results of the Supreme Court opinion in AT&T v. Concepcion – the invalidation of a state law that rendered unenforceable the waiver of class action suits in arbitration.  However, upon closer review of the opinion, the method utilized by the Supreme Court majority of five Republican nominated Justices is very troubling. 

AT&T Mobility LLC v. Concepcion: By No Means the End

May 6, 2011 by

On April 27, 2011, the U.S. Supreme Court issued its much-anticipated decision in AT&T Mobility LLC v. Concepcion, 563 U.S. __ (2011), in which the Court held that § 2 of the Federal Arbitration Act (“FAA”) preempts a certain California judicial rule (the so-called Discover Bank rule) relating to collective-action waivers in arbitration agreements.  Justice