Supreme Court

Federal Courts Must Grant Requests for Stays Pending Arbitration

Last week, in Smith v. Spizzirri, the United States Supreme Court unanimously held that a federal court must grant a party’s request for a stay while arbitration is pending. In Spizzirri, a group of delivery drivers sued their current and former employers in Arizona state court. The plaintiffs alleged they were misclassified as independent contracts and were denied benefits. The defendants removed the case to federal court. The defendants also moved to compel arbitration and dismiss the suit.

Plaintiffs agreed their claims are arbitrable but argued the Federal Arbitration Act (FAA) only requires the court to stay, […]

By |2024-05-21T09:20:05-04:00May 21st, 2024|Practice Areas: Class Action|Topics: , , , , , , , , , |
Read the Full Article

SCOTUS Deepens Circuit Split on Predominance Standard

The United States Supreme Court declined Visa and Mastercard’s petition for certiorari on Monday, thereby deepening a split between the circuit courts regarding the predominance standard for class certification. The National ATM Council, Inc. (NAC) filed a class action against the credit card companies for blocking ATM operators from charging customers different ATM fees. The credit card companies opposed certification by arguing, in part, that the putative class contained uninjured plaintiffs. They further argued this mixture of injured and uninjured plaintiffs failed to satisfy the predominance standard.

A federal judge disagreed and certified the class. The D.C. […]

By |2024-04-22T12:36:09-04:00April 22nd, 2024|Practice Areas: Class Action|Topics: |
Read the Full Article

Supreme Court Holds that Pure Omissions Cannot Support a Private Cause of Action Under SEC Rule 10b-5(b)

After hearing arguments on January 16, 2024, the Supreme Court issued its unanimous opinion on Macquarie Infrastructure Corp., et al. v. Moab Partners, LP, et al, on April 12, 2024. The Supreme Court granted certiorari to resolve “whether a failure to make a disclosure required by Item 303 can support a private claim under . . . Rule 10b-5(b) in the absence of an otherwise misleading statement.” The Court held that a manager’s pure omission cannot support an investor’s cause of action under Rule 10b-5(b). Instead, “the failure to disclose information required by Item 303 can […]

By |2024-04-17T10:37:21-04:00April 17th, 2024|Practice Areas: Class Action|Topics: |
Read the Full Article

Supreme Court Evaluates Private Cause of Action for Allegedly Lying by Omission

On January 16, 2024, the Supreme Court heard oral argument in Case Number 22-1165, Macquarie Infrastructure Corp., et al. v. Moab Partners, L.P., et al.   Before the Court was whether a “failure to make a disclosure under Item 303 of the SEC regulation S-K can support a private claim under Section 10b of the Exchange Act, even in the absence of an otherwise misleading statement.”

Between February 2016, and February 2018, Macquarie Infrastructure Corporation (MIC) in various Management’s Discussion and Analysis allegedly “disclosed a few known trends that would affect their bottom line but omitted” a new […]

By |2024-02-05T15:06:30-05:00February 5th, 2024|Practice Areas: Class Action|Topics: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , |
Read the Full Article

Supreme Court Rules in Favor of Athletes on Restricting Payment of Education-Related Benefits

On June 21, 2021, the Supreme Court ruled in favor of college athletes in their dispute with the NCAA over caps on certain education-related benefits.  In a 9-0 decision, the Court affirmed the ruling of the Ninth Circuit that the NCAA’s restrictions on certain education-related benefits to college athletes violates anti-trust laws.  Although college athletes will not receive salaries tied to their participation in athletics, they will be able to receive compensation for education-related activities and expenses—like internships, computers, and study abroad programs.

While the NCAA has defended its caps on education-related benefits as necessary to preserve […]

By |2021-06-22T10:46:11-04:00June 22nd, 2021|Practice Areas: Class Action|Topics: , , |
Read the Full Article

Supreme Court to Review Class Certification Standards in Private Securities Litigation

On December 11, 2020, the United States Supreme Court granted certiorari in Goldman Sachs Group, Inc., et al. v. Arkansas Teachers Retirement System, et al. No. 20-222, 2020 U.S. LEXIS 5993 (U.S. Dec. 11, 2020), to review a Second Circuit Court of Appeals decision, which involves issues of class certification in the context of shareholder securities class action litigation.

The questions presented on appeal are: (1) whether a defendant may rebut the Basic presumption by pointing to the generic nature of the alleged misstatements, even though that evidence is also relevant to the substantive element of materiality; […]

By |2021-01-19T10:03:49-05:00January 19th, 2021|Practice Areas: Class Action|Topics: , , |
Read the Full Article

The Telephone Consumer Protection Act Lives On: SCOTUS Severs the Government Debt Collection Exemption from the TCPA

In July 2020, the Supreme Court in Barr v. American Ass’n of Political Consultants, No. 19-631, upheld the Telephone Consumer Protection Act’s (“TCPA”) ban on telephone solicitation through the use of automatic telephone dialing systems, but in applying a strict scrutiny analysis, the Supreme Court found that the government debt collection exemption was an unconstitutional infringement of free speech under the First Amendment.

Barr v. American Ass’n of Political Consultants was an appeal from the Fourth Circuit. Specifically, the American Association of Political Consultants (“AAPC”) sought to challenge the government debt collection exemption of the TCPA, which […]

By |2020-09-09T09:47:35-04:00September 9th, 2020|Practice Areas: Class Action|Topics: , |
Read the Full Article

SCOTUS Holds that Third-Party Defendants Cannot Remove Class Actions from State to Federal Court

On May 28, 2019, in a 5-4 decision, in which Justice Thomas sided with the Court’s “liberal” justices, the Supreme Court held in Home Depot USA, Inc. v. Jackson that a third-party defendant cannot use the Class Action Fairness Act (CAFA) to remove a class action from state to federal court.

This case began when Citibank filed a debt-collection action in state court in North Carolina against respondent George Jackson, who borrowed money on a Citibank credit card to buy a home water-filtration system. In response, Jackson filed a counterclaim against Citibank and a third-party class action […]

By |2019-11-26T13:18:10-05:00May 29th, 2019|Practice Areas: General|Topics: , |
Read the Full Article

The Supreme Court Refuses to Enforce Classwide Arbitration

On April 24, 2019 the U.S. Supreme Court held that an ambiguous arbitration clause is not sufficient under the Federal Arbitration Act (FAA) to force class arbitration on a non-consenting party. Lamps Plus, Inc. v. Varela, No. 17-1988. The Court concluded that lower courts may not draw an inference from an ambiguous agreement that the parties consented to class arbitration and that neither silence nor ambiguity can establish a party’s consent to class arbitration under the FAA. This is because, according to the Court, parties’ consent to arbitrate is the foundational principle of arbitration agreements.

Lamps Plus […]

By |2019-11-26T13:17:43-05:00May 6th, 2019|Practice Areas: Labor & Employment|Topics: , |
Read the Full Article

SCOTUS Punts Ruling on Cy Pres Doctrine in Class Action Settlements

The Supreme Court issued its much-awaited ruling in Frank v. Gaos (17-961).  Court watchers anticipated that the Court would resolve the circuit split concerning the propriety of the cy pre doctrine in class action settlements.  Plaintiffs in the underlying litigation filed suit against Google alleging the company shared users’ search information with third-party vendors and, therefore, violated various common law privacy interests and state and federal statutes.  Because the class consisted of approximately 129 million individuals who used Google’s search engine, any monetary award to individual class members would be incredibly small.  Class counsel and Google […]

By |2019-11-26T13:17:10-05:00April 23rd, 2019|Practice Areas: General|Topics: , , , |
Read the Full Article

SCOTUS Holds that Rule 23(f) Class Certification Appeal Deadline is not Subject to Equitable Tolling

Under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure Rule 23(f), a federal appeals court may hear an appeal from an order granting or denying class certification if the appeal is filed within 14 days after the trial court’s order is entered.  The Supreme Court took up the question as to whether the deadline could be extended under equitable tolling principles. On February 26, 2019, the United States Supreme Court held in Nutraceutical v. Lambert that equitable tolling does not apply to extend the 14-day deadline to appeal an order denying or granting class certification under Federal Rule 23(f).

In […]

By |2019-11-26T13:16:20-05:00March 1st, 2019|Practice Areas: General|Topics: , |
Read the Full Article

SCOTUS Hears Arguments to Equitable Tolling Doctrine for Class Certification Appeal

On November 27, 2018, the Supreme Court heard  oral argument in Nutraceutical Corp. v. Lambert, No. 17-1094, to determine whether Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23(f)’s 14-day deadline to file for permission to appeal an order granting or denying a class-action certification is subject to equitable exceptions.

Rule 23(f) provides that the court of appeals may hear an appeal from an order granting or denying class certification.  To appeal the order, the party must petition the court of appeals for permission within 14 days after the order is entered.

In Lambert, Respondent Troy Lambert filed a class action […]

By |2019-11-26T13:15:32-05:00November 28th, 2018|Practice Areas: Consumer Protection|Topics: , |
Read the Full Article
© Carr Maloney P.C., All Rights Reserved. Disclaimer.

Enter your email address to get the latest Class Action Blog articles delivered to your inbox!
Sign Up!