Background
A recently decided Ninth Circuit case provides additional guidance for defendants looking to challenge standing in consumer class actions. In, McGee v. S-L Snacks National, Plaintiff brought a putative class action asserting claims of unfair competition, nuisance, and breach of the implied warranty of merchantability arising from her contention that her popcorn brand
Greg Markel and Gina Ferrari wrote “Settling Securities Class Actions,” the cover article for the December issue of Practical Law magazine. You can view the article here.
We hope you find this article helpful and insightful.
In this article, Greg and Gina discuss the various tactical and strategic questions and concerns that can affect
From court closures and the way judges conduct appearances and trials to the expected wave of lawsuits across a multitude of areas and industries, the COVID-19 outbreak is having a notable impact in the litigation space—and is expected to for quite some time.
To help navigate the litigation landscape, we are kicking off a webinar
Seyfarth Synopsis: Following Delaware’s lead in Trulia, an Illinois District Court judge refused to approve a mootness fee settlement as “worthless to the shareholders.” The judge noted that such settlements amounted to a plaintiffs’ bar “racket” with the goal of obtaining fees in cases that should be “dismissed out of hand.” Specifically, Judge Thomas M.
On Tuesday, May 26, 2015 at 12:00 p.m. Central, Jason P. Stiehl, Giovanna A. Ferrari and Jordan P. Vick will present the first installment of the 2015 Class Action Webinar series. They will provide a summary of key decisions from 2014, identify key trends for companies to watch for in 2015, as well as practical
Summary
California Penal Code Section 632 has provided a springboard to litigation related to the recording of telephone calls in the State of California. Last week, in Hatisihi v. First American, Case No. B244769 (Cal. Ct. App. 2d Dist.), the California Court of Appeal affirmed the recent trend of class certification denials in
Earlier this month, the Eighth Circuit weighed in on the issue of jurisdiction under the Class Action Fairness Act (“CAFA”), 28 U.S.C. § 1332 (d)(2), in Daniel Raskas v. Johnson & Johnson et al., Marjie Levy v. Pfizer Inc. and Leslie Yoffie v. Bayer Healthcare LLC (“Raskas”). The Court held that the Defendants needed