The Third Circuit recently affirmed a district court’s ruling in a Telephone Consumer Protection Act (“TCPA”) case that rejected class certification because individualized questions about consent precluded predominance. Conner v. Fox Rehabilitation Servs., P.C., 2025 WL 289230 (3d Cir. Jan. 24, 2025).
In Conner, a plaintiff brought a
Continue Reading Third Circuit Affirms That Individual Inquiries Into Consent Preclude Class CertificationThe 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 JurisdictionEarlier this month, the Ninth Circuit held in Sweet v. Cardona that although a third-party intervenor who wishes to object to a class settlement may have Article III standing based on an alleged reputational harm from the settlement, the intervenor nonetheless lacks standing to challenge a district court’s final approval
Continue Reading Ninth Circuit Holds That Third-Party Intervenors Do Not Have Standing to Challenge Class Action SettlementsIn the latest false advertising decision regarding malic acid (see prior Inside Class Actions coverage here, here, and here), the Southern District of California dismissed with prejudice a plaintiff’s claim that defendant falsely advertised that its licorice was “naturally flavored” because testing allegedly showed that the product
Continue Reading California Federal Court Dismisses False Advertising Suit Based on Malic AcidThe Fourth Circuit recently reinstated a wrongful death suit against a defendant, holding that the release in a settlement of consumer class actions against the defendant did not preclude plaintiff’s personal injury suit against that same defendant. See In re Lumber Liquidators Chinese-Manufactured Flooring Prod. Mktg., Sales Pracs. & Prod. Liab. Litig., — F. 4th —, 2024 WL 174363 (4th Cir. Jan. 17, 2024). The Fourth Circuit’s decision is notable given that class members—including plaintiff—explicitly agreed to release all personal injury claims against the defendant, yet the Fourth Circuit held that the plain language of the release was limited by the “identical factual predicate” doctrine and allowed the class member to raise this challenge in a subsequent lawsuit.Continue Reading Fourth Circuit Holds That Consumer Class Action Release Does Not Necessarily Release Personal Injury Claims
The First Circuit recently vacated and remanded a district court’s approval of a proposed class action settlement “because the absence of separate settlement counsel for distinct groups of class members makes it too difficult to determine whether the settlement treated class members equitably.” Murray v. Grocery Deliver E-Servs. USA Inc.
Continue Reading First Circuit Holds that Class Action Settlements Require Separate Counsel for Class Members with Significantly Different Claims