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 June's filings:

Smith v. Air Methods Corp., No. 9:14-cv-02587 (D.S.C. June 26, 2014) (alleging exorbitant and unconscionable charge for medical air transportation). Plaintiff’s purported class consists of “those who find themselves in need of medical attention” (para. 18) and “have been charged an unreasonable fee” for medical air transportation (para 34). This case was originally filed in Jasper County on May 15, 2014.

Oliver v. FirstPoint, Inc.

Early in May, we reported on the Supreme Court’s review of the Basic v. Levinson presumption of reliance in securities fraud cases. In an opinion today by Justice Roberts, the Court declined the invitation to overrule Basic's presumption of reliance in an efficiently traded market. Three justices (Thomas, Scalia and Alito) were prepared to overrule Basic. The majority held that there was no “special justification” to overrule Basic, noting the absence of “the kind of fundamental shift in economic theory that could justify overruling a precedent on the ground that it ...

Courts have understandably been reluctant to certify a class consisting of “persons who are injured by the defendant” or “individuals to whom the defendant is liable,” i.e., a class definition that depends on the outcome of the case. Such a “fail-safe” class is unfair to defendants:  if defendants win the case, there is no class that is bound by the result because the class consists solely of victors.

A West Virginia judge recently denied a former Dollar General employee her bid for class certification, finding the proposed class was fail-safe and therefore improper ...

The aphorism “If at first you don’t succeed . . .” has special significance in class litigation.  Rule 23(c)(1)(C) expressly provides that an order granting or denying class certification “may be altered or amended before final judgment,” and the Fourth Circuit has made it clear that the district court must decertify a class if “it becomes apparent, at any time during the pendency of the proceeding that class treatment of the action is inappropriate.” Stott v. Haworth, 916 F.2d 134, 139 (4th Cir. 1990).  But Judge Childs declined to decertify a class of plaintiffs who ...