Supreme Court

Subscribe to Supreme Court

We previously covered the Eleventh Circuit’s decision in Johnson v. NPAS Solutions, LLC, 975 F.3d 1244 (11th Cir. 2020), in which the Eleventh Circuit relied on two Supreme Court decisions from the 1880s to prohibit courts from awarding incentive or service awards to class representatives in class settlements.  Id. at 1255 (citing Trustees v. Greenough, 105 U.S. 527 (1881), and Cent. R.R. & Banking Co. v. Pettus, 113 U.S. 116 (1885).  Although the Eleventh Circuit was the first federal appellate court to bar these awards in all circumstances, a recent Second Circuit decision agreed that these awards are “likely impermissible” under Supreme Court precedent, while observing that it would take the entire Second Circuit to overturn prior precedent upholding incentive awards.  See Fikes Wholesale, Inc. v. HSBC Bank USA, N.A., 62 F.4th 704, 721 (2nd Cir. 2023).  The Department of Justice has likewise implied that it agrees with the Eleventh Circuit’s position, relying on the Johnson decision in an effort to block incentive awards from a class settlement in a District of Columbia court. …

Continue Reading Supreme Court Denies Cert on Incentive Awards

In a one-line order issued last week, the Supreme Court dismissed In Re Grand Jury, No. 21-1397, one of the most significant cases about the attorney-client privilege in decades.  The dismissal came just two weeks after oral argument.  The Court explained that the writ of certiorari had been “improvidently granted,” meaning the Court should…

The Supreme Court recently granted certiorari in a case to resolve a circuit split that has serious implications for companies who are unsuccessful in their efforts to enforce arbitration provisions in federal district courts. 

In Coinbase, Inc. v. Bielski, No. 22-105, the defendant moved to compel arbitration in two putative class actions.  The motions to compel were denied, and the defendant sought stays while it appealed the denials—which the Federal Arbitration Act gives defendants an automatic right to do.  See 9 U.S.C. § 16.  Both motions to stay were denied, and the Ninth Circuit affirmed both decisions.…

Continue Reading SCOTUS Set to Resolve Circuit Split over Stays Pending Arbitration Appeal

On Monday, the Supreme Court granted certiorari in Gonzalez v. Google LLC, 2 F.4th 871 (9th Cir. 2021) on the following question presented:  “Does section 230(c)(1) immunize interactive computer services when they make targeted recommendations of information provided by another information content provider, or only limit the liability of interactive computer services when they engage in traditional editorial functions (such as deciding whether to display or withdraw) with regard to such information?”  This is the first opportunity the Court has taken to interpret 47 U.S.C. § 230 (“Section 230”) since the law was enacted in 1996.…

Continue Reading Supreme Court Grants Certiorari in Gonzalez v. Google, Marking First Time Court Will Review Section 230

On June 15, the Supreme Court issued its decision in Viking River Cruises, Inc. v. Moriana, No. 20-1573, holding that the Federal Arbitration Act (“FAA”) requires California courts to honor agreements to arbitrate individual claims under the California Labor Private Attorneys General Act of 2004, Cal. Lab. Code § 2698 et seq. (“PAGA”).  Although Viking River Cruises is a significant win for California employers, it remains to be seen whether and to what extent the full scope of that win will be durable.…

Continue Reading Supreme Court Hands California Employers a Significant (if Qualified) Win

On May 23, 2022, the Supreme Court unanimously held that a party opposing arbitration is not required to demonstrate prejudice to show that the other party has waived its contractual arbitration rights. 

Before today’s decision, nine federal courts of appeals had adopted the rule that a “party can waive its arbitration right by litigating only when its conduct has prejudiced the other side.”  Morgan v. Sundance, 596 U.S. __ (2022).  Two other circuits had held no showing of prejudice was required.…

Continue Reading Supreme Court Decision Makes It Easier to Waive Right to Arbitration

Where are corporations subject to general jurisdiction?  The answer to that question matters a lot: if a corporation is subject to general jurisdiction in a state, anyone can sue it there on any claim.  Traditionally, though, corporations have been subject to general jurisdiction in only two states:  where they are incorporated and where they maintain their principal place of business.

The Supreme Court might now be poised to expand that list.  On April 25, the Court granted certiorari in Mallory v. Norfolk Southern Railway Co., a case that asks whether states can require corporations to consent to personal jurisdiction as a condition of registering to do business in a state. If the Court says “yes,” that decision may pave the way to a new era of forum-shopping.…

Continue Reading Supreme Court May Expand Where Corporations Are Subject to General Personal Jurisdiction

Last year, in TransUnion LLC v. Ramirez, 141 S.Ct. 2190 (2021), the Supreme Court confirmed that every class member must have Article III standing to recover damages in a class action.  As we have previously written, the Court’s decision – summed up as “[n]o concrete harm, no standing” – presents major obstacles to plaintiffs asserting class claims based on “bare procedural violation[s]” of statutes.  But Ramirez left unanswered some important questions about class action standing, and we offer some thoughts here on what the answers are likely to be.…

Continue Reading A Closer Look: Standing at Class Certification After TransUnion v. Ramirez

The Supreme Court has agreed to hear a case that may make it easier for companies to be found to have waived arbitration requirements in their contracts. Morgan v. Sundance, Inc. gives the Court an opportunity to resolve a circuit split over whether a party can be deemed to have waived its right to compel…

The Supreme Court’s decision in TransUnion LLC v. Ramirez, 2021 WL 2599472 (U.S. June 25, 2021), is one of the most significant class-action decisions from the Supreme Court in recent years. It expands the scope of the Court’s earlier Article III standing decision in Spokeo, Inc. v. Robins, 578 U.S. 330 (2016) confirming that, to recover damages in a class action, every class member must satisfy the standing requirement of Article III. The Court’s decision will inevitably make it more difficult for plaintiffs to certify a class asserting claims based on “bare violations” of statutes that do not cause concrete harm to putative class members.…

Continue Reading Supreme Court Confirms That Every Class Member Must Have Article III Standing to Recover Damages, Creating Additional Obstacles to Class Certification