Photo of Amy Heath

Amy Heath

Amy Heath focuses on complex commercial litigation and class actions. She has handled matters involving contract, privacy, consumer protection, fraud, unfair competition, and intellectual property claims. She also has experience with internal investigations. Before practicing law, Amy served as an intelligence analyst.

Plaintiffs appear to be increasingly focused on keeping certain types of class actions, including cases brought under the California Invasion of Privacy Act (CIPA), in California state court, likely seeking to take advantage of less rigorous pleading and class certification requirements.  Some plaintiffs are even bringing individual claims and affirmatively alleging that less than $75,000 is at stake to avoid removal under CAFA or diversity jurisdiction, while purporting to reserve the right to add class allegations at a later stage.  See, e.g., Casillas v. Hanesbrands Inc., 2024 WL 1286188 (C.D. Cal. Mar. 22, 2024) (remanding individual CIPA claim to state court). 

A recent decision in the Central District of California, Doe v. PHE, Inc., 2024 WL 1639149 (C.D. Cal. Apr. 15, 2024), should help defendants seeking to remove putative class actions to federal court under CAFA.Continue Reading A Closer Look: Recent C.D. Cal. Decision Strengthens Defendants’ Arguments for CAFA Removal

Earlier this month, the Judicial Conference’s Advisory Committee on Civil Rules unanimously approved a proposed new rule to the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure to address case management of multidistrict litigation (“MDL”).  The rule is the first addition to the Federal Rules focused on MDLs, and it reflects an attempt to suggest a nationwide approach to MDL case management that tracks approaches to case management that MDL judges have often followed in practice while leaving MDL judges discretion to depart from the suggested procedures depending on the needs of a particular case.Continue Reading New Federal Rule of Civil Procedure for MDLs Approved by Advisory Committee

A court in the Southern District of New York recently denied plaintiffs’ motion for class certification on adequacy grounds in a suit challenging the labeling of “Maximum Strength” Robitussin cough syrup.  See Woodhams v. GlaxoSmithKline Consumer Healthcare Holdings (US) LLC (S.D.N.Y. Mar. 21, 2024).Continue Reading SDNY Court Denies Class Certification in Suit Challenging Robitussin “Max Strength” Labels

In class actions challenging data collection, whether the defendant’s privacy policy disclosed the collection is almost always a key question at the dismissal stage.  In a memorandum decision likely to be useful to defendants, the Ninth Circuit recently affirmed dismissal of claims challenging Google’s collection of data from third-party apps on its Android mobile operating system, holding that Google’s Privacy Policy clearly disclosed the collection.  See Hammerling v. Google LLC, No. 22-17024 (9th Cir. Mar. 5, 2024) (unpublished).Continue Reading Ninth Circuit Affirms Dismissal of Data Privacy Claims Based on Disclosure of Collection in Privacy Policy

The Class Action Fairness Act permits removal of lawsuits brought under state-law rules similar to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23.  A court in the Northern District of California recently denied a motion to remand even though the complaint did not reference California Code of Civil Procedure section 382, California’s Rule 23 analogue.  See Pac. Coast Fed’n of Fishermen’s Associations, Inc. v. Chevron Corp., No. 18-CV-07477-VC, 2023 WL 7299195 (N.D. Cal. Nov. 1, 2023).  The ruling underscores that in the Ninth Circuit, “the CAFA removal inquiry focuses on the complaint’s substance, not formal labels and allegations.”  Id. at *2.Continue Reading Court Finds CAFA Removal Proper, Even Though Complaint Did Not Explicitly Invoke Rule 23 Equivalent

Last week, the Eleventh Circuit reversed in part and remanded an order certifying a class in a case arising from a data breach of Chili’s restaurants, Green-Cooper v. Brinker International, Inc., No. 21-13146, 2023 WL 4446420 (11th Cir. July 11, 2023).  The opinion clarifies the Eleventh Circuit’s view of when data breaches give rise to Article III standing.Continue Reading Eleventh Circuit Holds Having Payment Information Posted to Dark Web Establishes Standing in Data Breach Case, Remands Class Certification Order

Recent decisions from the First and Ninth Circuits may help defendants facing false advertising challenges to certain types of labeling statements known as “structure/function claims.”  Three courts have held that such challenges were preempted by the Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act (FDCA).Continue Reading Trio of Cases Supports Preemption Arguments for False Advertising Suits Challenging “Structure/Function Claims”

Late last year, our colleagues highlighted a wave of class action litigation asserting novel claims under state wiretap laws against website operators that use session replay software and chatbots on consumer websites.  Federal district courts in California have now ruled on the first round of chatbot cases, most brought by a handful of “tester” plaintiffs under the California Invasion of Privacy Act (“CIPA”), Cal. Penal Code §§ 630 et seq., and have nearly uniformly rejected the claims.  These initial favorable rulings should be helpful for defendants facing similar claims.Continue Reading A Closer Look: Courts Reject California Wiretap Claims Based on Website Chat Features

The Eleventh Circuit recently addressed two aspects of Article III standing relevant to class action settlements: the standing of a class member to object, and the standing of class representatives to seek injunctive relief—and thus whether such injunctive relief should be given any weight as part of the approval process.Continue Reading Eleventh Circuit Analyzes Article III Standing in Class Action Settlement Context

The Ninth Circuit recently held that the Children’s Online Privacy Protection Act, which gives the Federal Trade Commission  authority to regulate the online collection of personal information from children under the age of 13, does not preempt consistent state law, potentially increasing the risk of class action litigation based on alleged COPPA violations.  See Jones