Supreme Court

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

On January 24, the Supreme Court granted certiorari in Laboratory Corporation of America Holdings v. Davis to address a long-unsettled issue central to class-action litigation: “Whether a federal court may certify a class action pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23(b)(3) when some members of the proposed class lack any Article III injury.”Continue Reading Supreme Court to Decide If Presence of Uninjured Class Members Defeats Class Certification

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

In the first court decision addressing National Bank Act preemption since the Supreme Court clarified the standard in Cantero v. Bank of America, N.A., 144 S. Ct. 1290 (2024), the Ninth Circuit reaffirmed that the Act does not preempt a California state law requiring banks to pay interest on funds held in their customers’ escrow accounts.  See Kivett v. Flagstar Bank, FSB, 2024 WL 3901188 (9th Cir. Aug. 22, 2024).Continue Reading Ninth Circuit Addresses National Bank Act Preemption after Supreme Court Decision

Last week, the Supreme Court granted certiorari in NVIDIA Corp. v. E. Ohman J:or Fonder AB to address two important questions on the standard for pleading securities fraud claims under the Private Securities Litigation Reform Act (“PSLRA”): (1) whether plaintiffs seeking to allege scienter under the PSLRA based on allegations about internal company documents must plead with particularity the contents of those documents, and (2) whether plaintiffs can satisfy the PSLRA’s falsity requirement by relying on an expert opinion to substitute for particularized allegations of fact.Continue Reading Supreme Court to Review Securities Pleading Standard

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

On April 15, the U.S. Supreme Court declined a request by Visa and Mastercard to review a D.C. Circuit decision that appeared to add to a circuit split about how lower courts are to determine whether common issues predominate under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23(b)(3). 

The case, Visa Inc. v. Nat’l ATM Council, Inc., Case No. 23-814, was part of a long-running dispute between the card companies and ATM operators about ATM fees.  In July, the D.C. Circuit upheld the certification of three different Plaintiff classes over the card companies’ argument that the district court had failed to perform a “rigorous analysis” about whether class-wide issues predominated.  Nat’l ATM Council, Inc. v. Visa Inc., 2023 WL 4743013 (D.C. Cir. 2023).  Although it noted that the district court’s analysis was “notably terse,” the D.C. Circuit found no error in the lower court’s holding that Plaintiffs need only demonstrate a “colorable” method of proving class-wide injury and that the Plaintiffs’ evidence satisfied that test.  Rejecting the card companies’ argument that Plaintiffs’ class-wide injury methodology failed to weed out uninjured class members, the court observed that “Defendants’ contention that their model showing unharmed members is more accurate and credible than Plaintiffs’ different models showing that all members were harmed is … precisely the kind of material factual dispute” that should be resolved at the merits, not class certification, stage.  Id. at *11.    Continue Reading Supreme Court Declines to Wade into Class Certification “Predominance” Issue

In a short, unanimous opinion on April 12, 2024, the Supreme Court shut the door on “pure omission” claims under Rule 10b–5 and made clear that the Rule is limited to claims based on false or misleading statements.

The case, Macquarie Infrastructure Corp. v. Moab Partners, L.P., concerns alleged omissions in Defendant Macquarie’s SEC filings related to its subsidiary’s operation of bulk liquid storage terminals.  In 2016, the United Nations’ International Maritime Organization issued a regulation limiting this subsidiary’s ability to store high-sulfur fuel oil, its single largest product. Though the regulation was set to take effect in 2020, Macquarie did not discuss the regulation in its public filings.Continue Reading Supreme Court rejects pure omission claims under SEC Rule 10b–5