Gibbons Law Alert

Gibbons Law Alert

Tagged: Courts of Appeal – Third Circuit

Third Circuit Clarifies Apparent Confusion Regarding Rule 23(b)(3) Ascertainability Requirement

by

Posted in Class Action Defense

On May 19, 2015

In Byrd v. Aaron’s Inc., the United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit added to, and clarified, its “quartet” of ascertainability cases to resolve the “apparent confusion in the invocation and application of ascertainability in this Circuit.” The plaintiffs in Byrd brought a class action claiming violations of the Electronic Communications Privacy Act of 1986 because laptop computers had “spyware” installed, which had captured a wide array of personal information from the users including photographs and screenshots of websites visited. Adopting the recommendation of the Magistrate Judge, the District Court denied class certification for failure to establish ascertainability, finding that the proposed classes were both “underinclusive” (i.e., did not include all individuals whose information was gathered) and overinclusive (not every computer user had data intercepted), and that it was insufficient to propose that “household members” be identified by public records. “Because the District Court confused ascertainability with other relevant inquiries under Rule 23,” it “erred in determining that the Byrds’ proposed classes were not ascertainable.”

Third Circuit Holds Truth in Consumer Contract Notice and Warranty Act Claim May Not Be Based Upon Omission of Price Information

by

Posted in Class Action Defense

On December 2, 2014

In Watkins v. DineEquity, Inc., the Third Circuit recently considered whether the District Court properly dismissed a putative class action brought against Applebee’s and International House of Pancakes, in which Plaintiff claimed that Defendants violated the New Jersey Truth in Consumer Contract Notice and Warranty Act (“TCCNWA”) by failing to disclose beverage prices on their menus. In affirming the District Court’s dismissal, a divided Third Circuit panel ruled that the “TCCNWA encompasses only illegal provisions in writings covered by the statute, and does not make actionable omissions, including the omission of beverage prices from a restaurant menu.”

Classwide Arbitration is a Gateway Issue That Must Be Decided by Courts Not Arbitrators

by

Posted in Class Action Defense

On September 25, 2014

In Opalinski v. Robert Half International Inc., the Third Circuit recently tackled the question of whether a district court— rather than an arbitrator—should decide if an agreement to arbitrate between two parties also authorizes the arbitration of unidentified individuals’ claims on a classwide basis. Concluding that the district court should decide this question, the Third Circuit joined the Sixth Circuit as the only Courts of Appeals to squarely confront the “who decides” inquiry.

Third Circuit Finds Proposed Dual Service as Class Counsel and Class Representative Does Not Preclude CAFA Removal

by

Posted in Class Action Defense

On June 9, 2014

The Third Circuit recently considered whether the District Court properly denied a motion for remand brought by a pro se plaintiff, an attorney also seeking to serve as class counsel, who argued that since his “dual service” precluded class certification in federal court, the defendant could not aggregate the proposed class’s claims to satisfy the $5 million amount in controversy under the Class Action Fairness Act (“CAFA”). In affirming the denial of the plaintiff’s remand motion, the Third Circuit built upon recent Supreme Court precedent confirming that a plaintiff cannot stipulate to less than $5 million in damages to avoid the federal court’s subject matter jurisdiction under CAFA.

Third Circuit Provides Guidance on Exceptions to CAFA Removal

by

Posted in Class Action Defense

On November 13, 2013

In a precedential opinion, the Third Circuit in Vodenichar v. Halcón Energy Properties, Inc., clarified the “home state” and “local controversy” exceptions to federal subject matter jurisdiction under the Class Action Fairness Act (“CAFA”). The decision provides guidance on two undefined terms within CAFA, adopting broader interpretations for what makes a defendant a “primary defendant” for purposes of the home state exception and what constitutes an “other class action” for purposes of the local controversy exception.

Third Circuit Emphatically Enforces Last Year’s Ruling in Marcus on Rule 23(a) Prerequisites

by

Posted in Class Action Defense

On October 9, 2013

In Hayes v. Wal-Mart Stores, Inc., the Third Circuit determined that the plaintiff consumer failed to satisfy Rule 23’s ascertainability and numerosity requirements for class actions as articulated in Marcus v. BMW of North America, LLC and remanded the matter to the District Cout so that the plaintiff could address the clarified requirements expressed in Marcus, which was not yet decided at the time of the District Court proceedings in Hayes. By doing so, the Third Circuit demonstrated that it intends to continue vigilantly enforcing Rule 23’s threshold requirements for plaintiffs.

Supreme Court Rules that FLSA Collective Actions Are Distinct From Rule 23 Class Actions, But Fails to Resolve Circuit Split on Effect of Unaccepted Offers of Judgment

by

Posted in Class Action Defense

On May 8, 2013

On April 16, 2013, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled in Genesis Healthcare Corp. v. Symczyk, that a plaintiff-employee’s Fair Labor Standards Act (“FLSA”) collective action could not proceed because her claims were moot after the defendant offered the plaintiff, per Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 68, full relief for her individual claims. Although the decision is limited to FLSA collective actions, the Court’s rationale has the potential to apply to Rule 23 class actions as well.

Rejecting Tele Aid, the Third Circuit in Maniscalco v. Brother Holds that the Laws of Consumers’ Home States Apply in Nationwide Class Actions

by

Posted in Class Action Defense

On April 22, 2013

On March 8, 2013, the United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit issued its precedential decision in Maniscalco v. Brother International Corp., which significantly restricts the ability of out-of state plaintiffs to use the New Jersey Consumer Fraud Act (“NJCFA”) to pursue nationwide class actions in New Jersey against New Jersey based companies.

Third Circuit Makes Approval of Class Action Settlements Including Cy Pres Distributions More Difficult

by

Posted in Class Action Defense

On March 22, 2013

In In re Baby Products Antitrust Litigation, the Third Circuit vacated a district court’s approval of a $35.5 million class action settlement, finding it unreasonable that only $3 million of the settlement fund was to be distributed to class members. This marked the first time the Third Circuit has addressed the issue of cy pres distributions in class action settlements, and will likely lead district courts to subject class action settlements involving cy pres distributions to greater scrutiny.

Connect:

About Gibbons

With 200 attorneys, Gibbons is a leading law firm in New Jersey, New York, Pennsylvania, Delaware, Washington, DC, and Florida, ranked among the nation’s top 200 by The American Lawyer. More…

Subscribe

Archived Blog Posts

Categories