In Mississippi ex rel. Hood v. AU Optronics Corp., 134 S. Ct. 736 (Jan. 14, 2014), the United States Supreme Court held that one plaintiff does not a “mass action” make under the Class Action Fairness Act (CAFA). CAFA defines a “mass action” as a claim brought by more than 100 people, and the Court sided with the State of Mississippi, which had sued in Mississippi state court firms that sold LCD panels, alleging price fixing. The defendants preferred a federal forum in which to oppose the Mississippi Attorney General’s claims and removed the case to federal court, alleging that ...
About Class Actions Brief Blog
Class Actions Brief is your source for analysis of class action developments in federal and state judicial systems nationwide. Our attorneys use their experience representing clients both in and against class actions to provide fresh takes and commentary on what is happening in our courts today.
Topics
- Antitrust
- Appeal
- Appeals
- Arbitration
- Bankruptcy
- Choice of Law
- Class Action Fairness Act (CAFA)
- Class Counsel/Attorney's Fees
- Class Definition
- Class Representatives
- Collective Action
- Commonality
- Commonality/Predominance
- Consumer Protection
- Damages
- Data Privacy
- Due Process
- Employment
- Expert
- Jurisdictional Issues
- Manageability
- Mergers & Acquisitions
- Recent Filings
- Securities
- Settlement
- Standing
- Standing/Mootness
- Statute of Limitations
- Tolling
Jurisdictions
- All Jurisdictions
- D.C. Circuit
- District of South Carolina
- Eastern District of North Carolina
- Fifth Circuit
- Fourth Circuit
- Legislation
- Middle District of North Carolina
- Ninth Circuit
- North Carolina Business Court
- North Carolina State Courts
- North Carolina Supreme Court
- Northern District of Georgia
- Other
- Seventh Circuit
- Sixth Circuit
- South Carolina State Courts
- Tenth Circuit
- Third Circuit
- United States Supreme Court
- Western District of North Carolina
