Class Actions Brief Blog

Not every class action court filing in North and South Carolina becomes a full-length post on our blog. Here is a recap of April’s filings:

Graham v. Papa John’s USA, Inc., No. 14-cvs-7700 (Meck. County Apr. 25, 2014) (tort claims arising from alleged infections caused by restaurant worker with Hepatitis A).

Reed v. Big Water Resort, No. 2:14-cv-01583 (D.S.C. Apr. 22, 2014) (alleged “scheme to solicit millions of dollars from over a thousand people in exchange for the sale of nearly worthless memberships in the Big Water Resort,” located in Clarendon County).

Knight v. Pella ...

Unlike many pretrial rulings, “[a] district court’s order denying or granting class status is inherently tentative.” Coopers & Lybrand v. Livesay, 437 U.S. 463, 469 n. 11 (1978). Rule 23 expressly provides that “[a]n order that grants or denies class certification may be altered or amended before final judgment.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 23(c)(1)(C). Indeed, as the Fourth Circuit observed, in a case our firm handled, “an order certifying a class must be reversed if it becomes apparent, at any time during the pendency of the proceeding, that class treatment of the action is ...

The so-called “Northern Beltway” around Winston-Salem – in part from litigation efforts and in part from lack of funding – has never really gotten off the ground. But property owners whose land and homes are affected by the future project complained that the State’s actions in putting them on the map for the roadway constitute a “taking” under inverse condemnation principles. And they brought a multi-count class action challenging the DOT’s actions. The trial court denied class certification, and a unanimous Court of Appeals affirmed in Beroth Oil Company v. NC ...

The Second Circuit has observed that “[t]he [trial] judge [in a class action] should not regard himself as an umpire in typical adversary litigation. He sits also as a guardian for class members who have not received a notice or who lack the intellectual or financial resources to press objections.” Weinberger v. Kendrick, 698 F.2d 61, 69 n.10 (2d Cir. 1982). And this role is transparently on display when it comes to approving settlements, which is the court’s responsibility under Rule 23(e). Recent decisions in other circuits emphasize, particularly after Wal-Mart, that a ...