The Ninth Circuit recently reversed an $800,000 attorney fee award in a data breach class action because the award accounted for too large a portion of the total value of the settlement. In re California Pizza Kitchen Data Breach Litig., — F.4th —, 2025 WL 583419 (9th Cir. Feb. 24, 2025).Continue Reading Ninth Circuit Shoots Down Fee Award in Data Breach Class Action
No Final Judgment, No Attorneys’ Fees: The Supreme Court Clarifies the Meaning of “Prevailing Party” in Lackey v. Stinnie
In Lackey v. Stinnie, the Supreme Court has clarified who qualifies as a “prevailing party” eligible for attorneys’ fees under certain statutes. The decision carries significant implications for the availability of attorneys’ fees in class action cases where defendants are able to moot claims before a court enters a final judgment.
At issue in Lackey was whether plaintiffs could obtain attorneys’ fees under 42 U.S.C. §1988(b), which allows the “prevailing party” to recover attorneys’ fees in certain civil rights cases. Plaintiffs secured a preliminary injunction but were not able to obtain any further relief (including a final judgment) because the government voluntarily ceased the challenged conduct. In a 7-2 opinion authored by Chief Justice Roberts, the Supreme Court held that the plaintiff did not qualify as a “prevailing party.”Continue Reading No Final Judgment, No Attorneys’ Fees: The Supreme Court Clarifies the Meaning of “Prevailing Party” in Lackey v. Stinnie
California Federal Court Permits Thousands of Arbitration Opt-Outs from Certified Class
A court in the Northern District of California recently denied Google’s request to prevent more than 69,000 putative class members from opting out of a certified class in favor of pursuing individual arbitration of their claims against Google. See In re Google Assistant Privacy Litig., 2025 WL 510435, at *1 (N.D. Cal. Feb. 14, 2025)Continue Reading California Federal Court Permits Thousands of Arbitration Opt-Outs from Certified Class
First Circuit Agrees with Other Circuits that CAFA Jurisdiction Survives Class Certification Denial
The First Circuit recently held as a matter of first impression that denial of class certification does not strip a federal court of jurisdiction under the Class Action Fairness Act (“CAFA”), consistent with earlier decisions from the Second, Third and Seventh Circuits. The opinion also addressed two exceptions to CAFA—the “home state” and “local controversy” exceptions—ultimately finding that the latter did defeat CAFA jurisdiction in the case before it and required remand to state court. See Kress Stores of Puerto Rico, Inc. v. Wal-Mart Puerto Rico, Inc., — F.4th —-, 2024 WL 4750774 (1st Cir. Nov. 12, 2024).Continue Reading First Circuit Agrees with Other Circuits that CAFA Jurisdiction Survives Class Certification Denial
Outlawing Hide-and-Seek: California’s Prohibition on “Hidden Fees” in Consumer Pricing Set to Take Effect
California’s prohibition on so-called “hidden” or “junk” fees in consumer transactions is set to take effect on July 1, 2024, with potentially wide-ranging ramifications for how prices are displayed or offered to consumers in the Golden State – and the potential for a significant wave of new class action litigation.
The law—often referred to by its bill number, SB 478—amends California’s Consumer Legal Remedies Act (“CLRA”) to restrict the prices and fees businesses can offer to California consumers. The basic prohibition is stated in simple terms: businesses can no longer “advertis[e], display[], or offer[] a price for a good or service that does not include all mandatory fees or charges” to consumers, with limited exceptions such as for sales tax and certain shipping charges. SB 478 § 3 (to be codified at Cal Civ. Code § 1770(a)(29)(A)). But this simple language generates numerous complexities. For example: Are clearly disclosed fees prohibited if not folded into the main price, or just fees not presented to consumers in close proximity (in both location and time) to the primary price? When is a fee “mandatory”? Can fees that are included in a price still be itemized? Continue Reading Outlawing Hide-and-Seek: California’s Prohibition on “Hidden Fees” in Consumer Pricing Set to Take Effect
A Closer Look: Appellate Courts Closely Scrutinize Settlements
In two recent decisions, federal courts of appeals confirmed they are prepared to give close scrutiny to a class settlement that offers a hefty payday to plaintiffs’ counsel with very little genuine benefit to any class.Continue Reading A Closer Look: Appellate Courts Closely Scrutinize Settlements
A Closer Look: Recent C.D. Cal. Decision Strengthens Defendants’ Arguments for CAFA Removal
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
Second Circuit Holds that Rule 23(e) Prohibits Presumption of Fairness of Arm’s-Length Negotiated Class Settlements
In Moses v. New York Times Co., 2023 WL 5281138 (2d Cir. Aug. 17, 2023), the Second Circuit vacated and remanded the approval of a class action settlement because the district court applied the wrong legal standard in determining that the settlement was fair. But in doing so, the court reiterated that incentive awards for class action representatives are permissible in the Second Circuit.Continue Reading Second Circuit Holds that Rule 23(e) Prohibits Presumption of Fairness of Arm’s-Length Negotiated Class Settlements
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
Supreme Court Resolves Circuit Split to Require Stays Pending Appeal of Refusals to Compel Arbitration
The Supreme Court, in a 5–4 ruling, has resolved a circuit split on the issue of litigation stays pending appeal of denials of motions to compel arbitration. In the underlying putative class action, Bielski et al v. Coinbase, Inc., 3:21-cv-07478 (N.D. Cal.), Coinbase moved to compel arbitration of the plaintiffs’ claims, but the motion was denied by the district court. The Ninth Circuit—in a split from several other Circuits—declined to stay the district court proceedings while the appeal was pending. The Supreme Court now has ruled that a district court must stay proceedings while an interlocutory appeal on the question of arbitrability is ongoing. The decision means that defendants should be able to minimize ongoing litigation costs while an appeal of an adverse arbitration decision is pending.Continue Reading Supreme Court Resolves Circuit Split to Require Stays Pending Appeal of Refusals to Compel Arbitration