Search for: "INDIRECT PLAINTIFF CLASS"
Results 81 - 100
of 506
Sorted by Relevance
|
Sort by Date
15 Nov 2018, 10:16 am
The Court took issue with class counsel releasing indirect purchaser claims for three states (dismissed early in the case) without compensation or notice to those class plaintiffs. [read post]
8 May 2014, 4:00 am
Why the fiction of a representative plaintiff if the class is amorphous and no member, not even the representative plaintiff, will be expected to prove loss or receive compensation? [read post]
4 Mar 2013, 4:11 am
Claims dismissed, unless plaintiff could add additional class representatives. [read post]
9 Dec 2009, 3:21 pm
Nov. 25, 2009), certified 28 indirect purchaser classes – one nationwide class for injunctive relief under section 16 of the Clayton Act and 27 separate indirect purchaser damages classes under the laws of Arizona, Arkansas, California, Florida, Hawaii, Iowa, Kansas, Maine, Massachusetts, Michigan, Minnesota, Montana, Nevada, New Mexico, New York, North Carolina, North Dakota, Pennsylvania, Rhode Island, South Dakota, Tennessee, Utah, Washington,… [read post]
30 Aug 2016, 8:24 am
Tenet HealthSystem Phila., Inc., the Third Circuit Court of Appeals upheld a class action waiver in the context of an FLSA claim, where the plaintiff argued that the waiver violated Pennsylvania law, but, again, the plaintiff did not make a Section 7 argument. [read post]
3 Sep 2014, 6:28 am
The Court says it doesn't matter that the company had a class of securities listed on New York Stock Exchange.The question then becomes whether plaintiff may still invoke the statute. [read post]
8 Apr 2013, 11:01 am
The District Court, however, noted that the plaintiff named all three defendants on every claim asserted indicating that, even if the alleged liability may be indirect, those defendants faced exposure to the vast majority of the members of the proposed classes and a “primary defendant” for the purposes of CAFA. [read post]
22 Apr 2016, 3:51 pm
In Spokeo, the Supreme Court is mulling over whether a plaintiff/class representative has standing to assert claims based upon the violation of federal statutes – in that case the Fair Credit Reporting Act – where the plaintiff has not been injured. [read post]
15 Mar 2013, 1:29 pm
Because there is no indirect benefit to the class from the defendant’s giving the money to someone else, it is questionable whether most cy pres distributions effectuate the interests of the silent class members. [read post]
25 Feb 2011, 12:34 pm
Plaintiffs at first limited class to 31 for indirect consumer purchasers and 23 states for indirect reseller purchasers until the case settled. [read post]
1 Jun 2017, 7:50 pm
The plaintiffs’ case is that damage arose because, but for the misleading representations, the plaintiffs would not have bought the Nurofen Specific Pain products but would have instead purchased cheaper pain relief products. [read post]
1 Jun 2017, 7:50 pm
The plaintiffs’ case is that damage arose because, but for the misleading representations, the plaintiffs would not have bought the Nurofen Specific Pain products but would have instead purchased cheaper pain relief products. [read post]
9 Apr 2013, 9:01 pm
Yet courts routinely certify cases as class actions for liability only, relegating plaintiff class members to individual litigation when the time comes to calculate damages. [read post]
28 Sep 2018, 11:58 am
"If only 1% of all class action plaintiffs wanted to attend the January FTC v. [read post]
17 Aug 2021, 11:43 am
However, the plaintiff says that the planned vote on the amendment violates the Delaware General Corporation Law by requiring Class A (public) stockholders to vote together with the SPAC’s sponsor, which owns Class B stock (Bass v. [read post]
23 Jun 2014, 2:06 pm
Plaintiff-respondent Erica P. [read post]
27 Feb 2015, 4:58 am
Not being able to sue under federal antitrust laws because the Supreme Court says indirect purchasers are too remote to have a cognizable injury, the plaintiffs sued under state antitrust laws—adopted by half the union specifically to provide a claim not available under federal law—and state consumer protection laws. [read post]
13 May 2011, 12:30 pm
The AT&T Mobility decision rests on preemption grounds and does not necessarily resolve the question of whether class action waivers can be enforced against plaintiffs pursuing federal antitrust claims. [read post]
16 Mar 2011, 7:47 am
The latter issue, according to the court, should be addressed at the class certification stage, not here. [read post]
20 Dec 2012, 8:02 pm
Dow is the last remaining defendant in the case, as the class and opt-out plaintiffs have settled their claims against competing manufacturers Bayer, BASF, Huntsman, and Lyondell.The plaintiffs in the case provided sufficient direct and indirect evidence of a price fixing conspiracy involving Dow to allow a reasonable jury to find that such a conspiracy existed, the court held. [read post]
