Gibbons Law Alert
Drawing upon its own precedent and that of the Supreme Court in Comcast v. Behrend, the Third Circuit recently held in In re Blood Reagents Antitrust Litig. that a district court must resolve any Daubert challenges to proffered expert testimony as part of its “rigorous analysis” of the requirements for class certification.
In Nack v. Walburg, the plaintiff consented to receive a fax advertisement from the defendant. But, because the fax lacked an “opt-out” notice arguably required by regulations promulgated under the Telephone Consumer Protection Act (“TCPA”), plaintiff filed a class action complaint, seeking millions of dollars in class-wide statutory damages under the TCPA. The district court granted summary judgment in favor of the defendant, holding that the pertinent regulation should be narrowly interpreted to require opt-out notices only for unsolicited faxes, not invited faxes. The Eighth Circuit, however, relying on an amicus brief from the FCC, disagreed and reversed, holding that the Hobbs Act prevented judicial review of administrative regulations, except on appeal from a prior agency review. The court expressed skepticism as to “whether the regulation (thus interpreted) properly could have been promulgated under the statutory section” at issue but suggested that defendant seek a stay of the civil proceedings while it pursued administrative remedies.
In an opinion beneficial to class action defendants, the Seventh Circuit has taken some of the guesswork out of removal by holding that the 30-day period for removing a case to federal court only begins once the defendant has received a pleading or other litigation paper that includes a specific, unequivocal statement that the damages sought meet the jurisdictional amount.
Following the rule announced in Standard Fire Ins. Co. v. Knowles, the Ninth Circuit has reversed course on the burden borne by defendants seeking to remove under the Class Action Fairness Act (“CAFA”). Now, defendants need only establish the amount in controversy by a preponderance of the evidence. In Rodriguez v. AT&T Mobility Services, the Ninth Circuit was faced with a putative class representative’s waiver of all damages above $5 million. The waiver was designed to avoid removal under the Class Action Fairness Act (“CAFA”), but earlier this year, the Supreme Court held in Standard Fire that such waivers are ineffective. Therefore, the Ninth Circuit vacated the District Court’s order remanding the case to state court and remanded to the District Court for further proceedings.