Robinson Bradshaw

Jurisdiction: United States Supreme Court

U.S. Supreme Court Decides Class Action “Pick Off” Case In Favor Of Plaintiff, But Leaves Open The Possibility Of A Different Result In Future Cases

Last November we previewed a case raising an important question in the class action world: If a defendant in a putative class action offers the named plaintiff complete relief on the plaintiff’s individual claim, but the plaintiff does not accept the offer, does the offer nonetheless render the case moot? On January 20, the Supreme […]

U.S. Supreme Court Rebukes California Court for Failing to Enforce an Arbitration Agreement with a Class-Arbitration Waiver

On Monday, the Supreme Court held in DIRECTV, Inc. v. Imburgia that a California appellate court erred by declining to enforce an arbitration agreement that prohibits arbitration on a class-wide basis. The decision is the latest in a steady line from the Supreme Court chastising lower courts for failing to give effect to arbitration agreements. […]

Preview of Significant Class Action Cases Pending in the U.S. Supreme Court

The Supreme Court began its new Term on October 5, and already the Court is slated to hear several cases that could have major impacts on class-action litigation. Among the issues facing the Court are: ▪ whether a defendant can render a putative class action moot by offering the named plaintiff all the relief the […]

Supreme Court Grants Certiorari In Major Decision Concerning the Implications of Wal-Mart Stores, Inc. v. Dukes

Yesterday, the United States Supreme Court granted Tyson Foods’ petition for certiorari to review the Eighth Circuit’s opinion upholding class certification in a donning and doffing case. A class of Tyson employees brought the suit seeking compensation for time they spent putting on (donning) or removing (doffing) protective equipment and clothing. The decision promises to […]

Supreme Court Upholds Fraud on the Market Presumption

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 […]

Local lawsuit mirrors FLSA class action appeal to be decided by the U.S. Supreme Court

In Johnson v. Amazon.com dedc, LLC, No. 3:14-cv-01797 (D.S.C. May 2, 2014), seven South Carolina Amazon warehouse workers sued Amazon on behalf of themselves and similarly situated employees alleging unpaid overtime in violation of the Fair Labor Standards Act (“FLSA”) at Amazon’s fulfillment centers in West Columbia and Spartanburg. Plaintiffs allege that they should be […]

Supreme Court to Review Fraud on the Market Presumption

It is difficult to understate the effect on class actions of Basic Inc. v. Levinson, 485 U.S. 224 (1988), which the Supreme Court decided in 1988. It is virtually impossible to demonstrate “reliance” – a key element of most securities’ fraud claims – on a class-wide basis. Indeed, if reliance is a part of the […]

Controversy over Cy Pres Settlements

Funds from a class action settlement are generally distributed to class members. But in some cases, not all funds are claimed. In others, it may not even be possible or practical to distribute any funds to individual class members. A “cy pres” distribution is one way of dealing with this issue. The concept comes from […]

Family Dollar Files Petition for Writ of Certiorari

Family Dollar, a national discount store retailer based in Charlotte, was sued by a putative class of female store managers alleging gender discrimination in pay in the Western District of North Carolina. In January 2012, Judge Cogburn dismissed the class claims, holding that they weren’t viable under Dukes v. Wal-Mart Stores, Inc., 131 S. Ct. […]

Can One ‘Representative’ Plaintiff Be A Class under CAFA? Supreme Court Says “No”

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 […]