The Supreme Court recently held in Royal Canin U.S.A., Inc. v. Wullschleger that even if a defendant properly removes a complaint from state to federal court based on federal question jurisdiction, a plaintiff’s post-removal amendment of the complaint to eliminate the basis for federal question jurisdiction will also deprive the
Continue Reading Supreme Court Holds That Post-Removal Amendment of Complaint Can Destroy Federal Jurisdiction
A Closer Look: Ninth Circuit Extends American Pipe Tolling to Potentially Excluded Class Members in Face of Ambiguous Class Definitions
In a case of first impression, the Ninth Circuit recently held that when there is ambiguity about the scope of a putative or certified class, American Pipe statute of limitations tolling should generally apply to potentially excluded class members. This question is likely to arise where a proposed class definition is narrowed during the course of litigation such that certain putative members may no longer fit within the definition. Should those now-excluded bystander plaintiffs argue that American Pipe tolling applies to their claims, courts in the Ninth Circuit are now instructed to resolve that ambiguity in favor of such bystander plaintiffs.Continue Reading A Closer Look: Ninth Circuit Extends American Pipe Tolling to Potentially Excluded Class Members in Face of Ambiguous Class Definitions
Supreme Court Says Courts Cannot Dismiss Claims Pending Arbitration When Stay is Requested
On Tuesday May 16th, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled that a federal district court does not have discretion to dismiss a case where all claims are subject to arbitration and a party has requested a stay. This resolves a long-standing circuit split. Continue Reading Supreme Court Says Courts Cannot Dismiss Claims Pending Arbitration When Stay is Requested
Illinois Federal Court Denies Certification of Student-Athlete Issues Classes on Waiver Grounds
Numerous student athletes have filed putative class actions against the NCAA and its member institutions for injuries resulting from concussions sustained while playing college sports, some of which have been consolidated into an MDL. The MDL court recently denied certification of several Rule 23(c)(4) issues classes based on the plaintiffs’ earlier waiver of the ability to seek certification of a 23(c)(4) class. See In re NCAA Student-Athlete Concussion Injury Litigation—Single Sport/Single School (Football), 2024 WL 1242987 (N.D. Ill. March 22, 2024).Continue Reading Illinois Federal Court Denies Certification of Student-Athlete Issues Classes on Waiver Grounds
A Closer Look: Changes To F.R.E. 702 Will Help Ensure Courts Follow The Expert ‘Gatekeeping’ Function
December 1 marks an important and long-awaited change to Federal Rule of Evidence 702. The Rule, pertaining to the testimony of expert witnesses, has not received a substantive update since 2000, when it was amended in the wake of the Daubert decision. Now, more than 20 years later—and after years of study—the Rule has been amended to make two issues clear: (1) that the proponent of an expert’s testimony must establish the admissibility of that testimony by a preponderance of the evidence; and (2) that an expert’s opinion must reflect a reliable application of his or her methodology to the case. These changes reinforce the key gatekeeping role that courts play in ensuring that only helpful, reliable expert testimony is heard by the factfinder. Continue Reading A Closer Look: Changes To F.R.E. 702 Will Help Ensure Courts Follow The Expert ‘Gatekeeping’ Function
Fifth Circuit Declines to Wade Into Circuit Split on Relationship Between Standing and Class Certification
In a recent published decision, the Fifth Circuit declined to articulate a rule for the “order and depth in which” it “grapples with constitutional standing and the Rule 23 inquiry.” Chavez v. Plan Benefit Services, Inc., __ F.4th __, No. 22-50368, 2023 WL 5160393 (5th Cir. Aug. 11, 2023). The court concluded that the plaintiffs—three employees who participated in health and retirement plans administered by the defendants—had standing to sue on behalf of absent class members who participated in thousands of different benefits plans administered by the defendants. The court went on to affirm the district court’s certification of two classes, each under both Rules 23(b)(1)(B) and 23(b)(3).Continue Reading Fifth Circuit Declines to Wade Into Circuit Split on Relationship Between Standing and Class Certification
Split Supreme Court Weighs in on Corporate Consent to Personal Jurisdiction
Pennsylvania law requires foreign corporations to register to do business in the Commonwealth and provides that all registrants are subject to suit on “any cause” in the Commonwealth’s courts, regardless of a connection to the jurisdiction. In a split decision, the Supreme Court reversed a Pennsylvania Supreme Court decision finding that this general jurisdiction provision violated the Due Process Clause. Mallory v. Norfolk So. Railway Co., 600 U.S. __ (2023) (slip op. available here).Continue Reading Split Supreme Court Weighs in on Corporate Consent to Personal Jurisdiction
Tenth Circuit Permits District Courts to Rely on Third and Seventh Circuit Ascertainability Precedent
The Tenth Circuit recently affirmed an order denying class certification, in an unpublished decision holding that district courts may rely on out-of-circuit precedent in deciding whether a proposed class is ascertainable.Continue Reading Tenth Circuit Permits District Courts to Rely on Third and Seventh Circuit Ascertainability Precedent
Ninth Circuit Confirms State-Law Pre-Suit Notice Requirements Apply to Putative Class Representatives
A recent Ninth Circuit decision highlights the importance of considering whether a plaintiff’s failure to comply with a state-law pre-suit notice requirement can be used to quickly defeat a class action. The court rejected plaintiff’s argument that such pre-suit notice rules do not apply to putative class actions.Continue Reading Ninth Circuit Confirms State-Law Pre-Suit Notice Requirements Apply to Putative Class Representatives