Gibbons Law Alert

Gibbons Law Alert

Tagged: Class Actions

Super Bowl Tickets Not the Ticket to Federal Class Action, as Third Circuit Finds No Standing for Uninjured Plaintiffs

by

Posted in Class Action Defense

On January 28, 2016

“[T]he disappointment of wanting to attend a concert or athletic event only to discover that the event has sold out,” does not confer constitutional standing. That was the take away from the Third Circuit Court of Appeals recent precedential decision, Finkelman v. Nat’l Football League. Addressing the always-thorny contours of constitutional standing to bring a federal lawsuit, the Court held, in the face of high Super Bowl ticket prices, that neither non-purchasers of tickets nor purchasers of “scalped” tickets at elevated prices, had standing to sue under Article III. This opinion sets up yet another obvious roadblock in the path of plaintiffs looking to bring claims—whether or not as class actions—when their perceived injuries are either non-existent or so tenuous as to make “difficulties in alleging an injury-in-fact . . . insurmountable.”

Third Circuit Says Bananas to Forum Shoppers Seeking Second Bite at the Apple

by

Posted in Class Action Defense

On September 15, 2015

In a recent precedential 2-1 decision, Chavez, et al. v. Dole Food Company, Inc., et al., the Third Circuit emphasized the importance of the “first filed” rule and affirmed the dismissal of a Delaware suit that was “materially identical” to one first brought in Louisiana. The Circuit Court reiterated that “[t]he ‘first filed’ rule is a well-established policy of the federal courts that in all cases of concurrent jurisdiction, the court which first has possession of the subject must decide it. This rule permits the district courts, in their discretion, to stay, transfer, or dismiss cases that are duplicates of those brought previously in other federal fora.”

Class Action Plaintiffs Have Standing Based on Actual Injuries and Costs of Mitigation Following Corporate Hacking, Says Seventh Circuit

by and

Posted in Class Action Defense

On August 6, 2015

The Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit recently held that class action plaintiffs alleging injuries due to corporate hacking scandals have standing to pursue those claims in federal court, based on both actual injuries suffered repairing damage done by fraudulent charges, as well as costs of mitigating potential future harm, such as credit monitoring. Remijas v. Neiman Marcus Group, LLC, No. 14-3122 (7th Circ. July 20, 2015). As with other cases that come to the same conclusion, the court placed great emphasis on the fact that the data thieves were specifically targeting personal data, as well as the company’s admission of the breach and offer of a year of credit monitoring to those whose information had been exposed.

Don’t Get Hacked By Your Cyber-Insurer

by

Posted in Insurance

On July 13, 2015

The risks inherent in the maintenance and storage of confidential information present an ongoing challenge to daily operations. Cyber insurance may be an appropriate mechanism to mitigate those risks. But – BUYER BEWARE – broad exclusions and other conditions in a cyber policy can hack into coverage and leave your company uninsured and exposed to significant liability for defense costs, liability payments, and regulatory damages.

Federal Law Preempts NJ Fair Credit Report Act and TCCWNA Claims, New Jersey Court Says

by

Posted in Class Action Defense

On June 9, 2015

Claims based on a retailer’s improper inclusion of too many credit card digits or a credit card expiration date on a sales receipt may not be brought under either the New Jersey Fair Credit Report Act (“NJFCRA”) or New Jersey’s Truth-in-Consumer Contract, Warranty, and Notice Act (“TCCWNA”), according to a recent ruling by the New Jersey Law Division.

New Jersey Appellate Division Says Ascertainability Not Required for Class Certification

by

Posted in Class Action Defense

On June 4, 2015

As recently reported by this blog, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit upheld and clarified the implied requirement of Rule 23 that a class be ascertainable in order to be certified. But a New Jersey appellate court recently ruled that there is no such requirement under the New Jersey Court Rules, at least where each class member holds a low-value claim.

Third Circuit Confirms Prospective Application of New Jersey Supreme Court’s Shelton Decision, Dooming Underlying Class Action

by and

Posted in Class Action Defense

On May 21, 2015

In a recent precedential decision, the Third Circuit, in Bohus, et al. v. Restaurant.com, held that the New Jersey Supreme Court’s Shelton decision — responding to a question of law certified by the Third Circuit as to the proper interpretation of the Truth in Consumer Contract, Warranty, and Notice Act (“TCCWNA”) — may be applied prospectively, thus defeating the class claims and leaving only two individual claims for a $100 penalty.

Third Circuit Confirms That Challenged Expert Testimony Must Survive Daubert Challenges in Order to Demonstrate Conformity with Rule 23

by and

Posted in Class Action Defense

On April 20, 2015

Drawing upon its own precedent and that of the Supreme Court in Comcast v. Behrend, the Third Circuit recently held in In re Blood Reagents Antitrust Litig. that a district court must resolve any Daubert challenges to proffered expert testimony as part of its “rigorous analysis” of the requirements for class certification.

Opinion Holds That Non-Monetary Reverse Payments Trigger Actavis Antitrust Scrutiny, Creating Split Within D.N.J.

by

Posted in Antitrust

On November 12, 2014

An opinion issued on October 6, 2014, by Judge Sheridan of the United States District Court for the District of New Jersey further muddied the legal waters as to what type of “reverse payments” made by makers of brand-name pharmaceuticals to their generic competitors to settle patent litigation are subject to antitrust scrutiny under the Supreme Court’s decision in FTC v. Actavis. Judge Sheridan held that Actavis applies to non-monetary payments, such as a promise by the brand-name manufacturer in exchange for which the generic agrees to delay entry. Importantly, however, a non-monetary payment must be capable of being reliably converted to a monetary value so that it can be evaluated against the Actavis factors. Judge Sheridan’s holding runs counter to Judge Walls’s decision earlier this year in In re Lamictal Direct Purchaser Antitrust Litigation, which limited Actavis to reverse payments involving an exchange of cash and was the subject of a prior blog post.

Court Holds Only Reverse Payment of Money Requires Actavis Antitrust Scrutiny

by

Posted in Antitrust

On February 6, 2014

Recent years have seen a significant number of antitrust challenges to so-called “reverse payment” pharmaceutical patent litigation settlements between brand name manufacturers and their generic competitors. The Supreme Court’s decision in FTC v. Actavis resolved a split among the courts of appeal, and held that settlements in which “large and unjustified” reverse payments are made are subject to antitrust scrutiny in the form of a traditional “rule of reason” analysis. In the wake of Actavis, the lower courts have begun to grapple with the question of what, if any, application Actavis has to the disposition of antitrust challenges to patent settlements that do not include a large payment of cash by the brand producer to the generic, but may include other forms of non-monetary consideration.

Connect:

About Gibbons

With 200 attorneys, Gibbons is a leading law firm in New Jersey, New York, Pennsylvania, Delaware, Washington, DC, and Florida, ranked among the nation’s top 200 by The American Lawyer. More…

Subscribe

Archived Blog Posts

Categories