- Posts by Robert W. Fuller
AttorneyRobert Fuller's practice focuses on counseling business clients and resolving business disputes through litigation, negotiation or ADR mechanisms. He has experience in corporate, financial products, banking, partnership ...
On Aug. 18, the United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit issued an opinion in the long-running Marriott Data Breach MDL Litigation. The Fourth Circuit reversed a district court’s class certification decision, holding that the district court erred in certifying damages classes against the Marriott defendants without first addressing, as a threshold issue, the potential enforceability of a “class-action waiver” that could be applicable to all members of the putative class. The Court of Appeals also reversed the district court’s certification of issue ...
Updated 8-16-22: StarKist and the other defendants filed their petition for certiorari in the Olean Wholesale Grocery case. A link to the Petition is here.
In September 2021 and again in June of this year, we wrote about the Ninth Circuit’s opinion in Olean Wholesale Grocery v. Bumble Bee Foods and the court’s opinion following rehearing en banc. The defendants in Olean obtained a extension to file a certiorari petition with the Supreme Court through August 8, 2022, so the last word may not have been written in Olean.
On July 5, 2022, the Ninth Circuit issued another notable class ...
It appears that the answer may be yes. In 2017, the General Assembly amended G.S. § 7A-27 to permit defendants to take interlocutory appeals from orders granting class certification. Prior to the amendment, plaintiffs could pursue interlocutory appeals from orders denying class certification, but defendants had no reciprocal right of appeal.
As amended, section 7A-27(a) states that “[a]ppeal lies of right directly to the Supreme Court” from “any trial court’s decision regarding class action certification under G.S. § 1A-1, Rule 23.” It also states that appeal lies of ...
Updated 6-11-18: The Supreme Court’s decision earlier today in China Agritech confirms the validity of the observations in the original blog post below. The Court held that American Pipe tolling does not apply to successive class actions.
In American Pipe & Construction Co. v. Utah, 414 U.S. 538 (1974), and Crown Cork & Seal v. Parker, 462 U.S. 345 (1983), the U.S. Supreme Court held that the pendency of a class action will toll limitations periods for absent class members until class certification is denied.
Much recent attention has been focused on China Agritech Inc. v. Resh
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.
Editors
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