Search for: "Class Action Defense"
Results 1421 - 1440
of 12,819
Sorted by Relevance
|
Sort by Date
6 Sep 2007, 6:21 am
The trial court denied a defense motion to compel arbitration pursuant to the service agreement’s arbitration clause, which included a class action waiver, id., at 346-47. [read post]
29 Sep 2009, 5:05 am
Defense attorneys moved to dismiss the class action complaint. [read post]
13 Nov 2009, 5:07 am
The Judicial Panel granted the motion to centralize the class action lawsuits, rejecting defendants’ claims that the various class actions presented individual issues. [read post]
22 Oct 2018, 5:56 am
The First Circuit recently addressed an issue of broad significance in class action law. [read post]
11 Mar 2019, 1:03 pm
Accordingly, employers faced by putative wage hour class or collective actions in forums where they do not have significant contacts to justify personal jurisdiction should clearly consider asserting such a defense by early motion. [read post]
11 Nov 2009, 4:08 am
Defense attorneys moved to dismiss the class action on the grounds that the state law claims were preempted by the Securities Litigation Uniform Standards Act of 1998 (SLUSA); the district court agreed and dismissed the class action complaint. [read post]
25 Mar 2011, 1:21 pm
In at least one case, a district court rejected a defense motion to deny class certification under Twombly and Iqbal, holding that the complaint does not “fail[] to plausibly allege fact consistent with a class action. [read post]
26 Jun 2008, 3:49 pm
The Class Action Defense Blog will post a summary of the Supreme Court opinion on Monday, June 30. [read post]
16 Dec 2008, 12:21 pm
Plaintiff’s class action certification motion asserted that a Rule 23(b)(3) class action should be certified, id., at 440-41. [read post]
18 Apr 2010, 8:53 pm
” _Id._ Defense attorneys moved to dismiss the class action, and the district court granted the motion on the grounds that RESPA does not apply to “overcharge” claims and that the class action’s UCL claims were preempted by the National Bank Act and “failed to identify an underlying illegal predicate act. [read post]
26 Mar 2009, 5:04 am
Plaintiffs’ attorneys moved the district court to certify the litigation as a class action; defense attorneys argued against class action treatment. [read post]
2 Nov 2009, 3:51 am
The district court granted the motion and dismissed the class action without prejudice. [read post]
23 Apr 2008, 4:54 am
Defense attorneys removed the class action to federal court asserting removal jurisdiction under the Class Action Fairness Act (CAFA) and the Multiparty Multiform Trial Jurisdiction Act (MMTJA). [read post]
11 Nov 2008, 11:49 am
The trial court granted the defense motion and entered judgment in favor of defendant as to all causes of action in the class action complaint premised on those theories (the third, fifth and sixth causes of action). [read post]
2 Apr 2009, 5:17 am
In part, the defense motion to dismiss argued that the class action allegations failed to meet the heightened pleading requirements of Rule 9(b); plaintiffs argued that Rule 9(b) does not apply to mail and wire fraud claims. [read post]
17 Dec 2007, 4:14 am
The Ninth Circuit agreed with defense counsel that class action redress of injunctive and declaratory relief is unavailable to former employees and thus "cannot possibly predominate over monetary relief for purposes of certifying this class [action] under Rule 23(b)(2). [read post]
8 May 2019, 3:00 pm
To start with, the dismissal rate for securities class actions across all industry classes approaches 50%. [read post]
7 May 2018, 5:44 am
The Supreme Court recently granted review in a case that involves whether, or in what circumstances, cy pres relief may be used in class action settlements. [read post]
26 Jan 2010, 8:02 pm
_Id._ The class action settlement required members of the class “release the Blue Cross plans from all claims arising out of or related to matters referenced in the class action and settlement agreement,” _id._, at *1-*2. [read post]
19 Apr 2010, 4:53 am
Defense attorneys moved to dismiss the class action, and the district court granted the motion on the grounds that RESPA does not apply to “overcharge” claims and that the class action’s UCL claims were preempted by the National Bank Act and “failed to identify an underlying illegal predicate act. [read post]
