On June 10, 2025, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit ruled that courts must provide class-wide notice of an attorney fee motion under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23(h). Morrow v. Jones, No. 23-40546, 2025 WL 1634785 (5th Cir. June 10, 2025).Continue Reading Fifth Circuit Reaffirms that Courts Must Provide Class-Wide Notice of Attorney Fee Motions
Sixth Circuit Affirms Class Certification Despite Potential Presence of Class Members Who Did Not Suffer Economic Injury
Whether the presence of uninjured class members can defeat class certification is a hot-button topic in class action litigation. Just four days after the Supreme Court dismissed the appeal in Laboratory Corporation of America Holdings v. Davis regarding whether class certification is permissible under Rule 23(b)(3) when some members of the putative class are uninjured (we described this case here), the Sixth Circuit affirmed class certification in Pickett v. City of Cleveland, Ohio, despite defendant’s argument that up to twenty percent of the class did not suffer an economic injury. — F. 4th —-, 2025 WL 1622110 (6th Cir. June 9, 2025).
Continue Reading Sixth Circuit Affirms Class Certification Despite Potential Presence of Class Members Who Did Not Suffer Economic Injury
Ninth Circuit Shoots Down Fee Award in Data Breach Class Action
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