Search Results (2122)
Documents on class actions
Show: results per page
|The Supreme Court On Screening Out Strikes Suits In Secondary Market Disclosure Class Actions|
David Di Paolo, James Gibson; Borden Ladner Gervais LLP;
April 24, 2015, previously published on April 21, 2015On April 17, 2015, the Supreme Court released its decision in TheratechnologiesInc. v. 121851 Canada Inc., 2015 SCC 18: (http://canlii.ca/t/gh76z) addressing two important issues in secondary market disclosure actions. First, how strong a case does the plaintiff have to show to obtain leave to...
|FCRA Class Actions|
Mathew A. Parker; Fisher & Phillips LLP;
April 22, 2015, previously published on April 1, 2015The slowly rising waves of Fair Credit Reporting Act (FCRA) class-action litigation are beginning to crash against employers. And if you thought that the FCRA only applied to credit bureaus and creditors, it’s time to think again.
|No Representation Without Substantiation? What POM Wonderful v. FTC Means for Consumer Class Actions|
Mintz Levin Cohn Ferris Glovsky Popeo P.C.;
April 9, 2015, previously published on February 5, 2015In this first post of a two-part series, we take a closer look at last Friday’s decision in POM Wonderful v. FTC by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia, which has meaningful implications for how companies advertise their products’ health benefits to consumers. The...
|Update: Ontario Court Grants Franchisees’ Claim for Ongoing Disclosure as the Pet Valu Saga Continues|
Brooke MacKenzie, Adam Ship, Thomas N.T. Sutton; McCarthy Tétrault LLP;
April 7, 2015, previously published on February 2, 2015Last year, we discussed the Ontario Superior Court’s decision to substantially dismiss a class action commenced by former Pet Valu franchisees on summary judgment. On the basis that new evidence had arisen on the motion that could support a new common issue, Justice Belobaba deferred...
|Ontario Court Stays Franchisees’ Class Action in Favour of Arbitration Clause in Franchise Agreement|
Meghan S. Bridges, Adam Ship; McCarthy Tétrault LLP;
April 7, 2015, previously published on January 30, 2015In 1146845 Ontario Ltd. v. Pillar to Post Inc., 2014 ONSC 7400, the Ontario Superior Court of Justice stayed a class action brought by plaintiff franchisees against the franchisor in favour of an arbitration clause in the franchise licensing agreement.
|No Duck, No Luck: Quebec Superior Court Denounces Passive Class Action Petitioners and their Enterprising Counsel|
Emira Tufo; McCarthy Tétrault LLP;
April 7, 2015, previously published on January 28, 2015In Adanna Charles v. Boiron Canada (Boiron), the Quebec Superior Court recently rendered a judgement refusing to authorize (certify) a class action and to name as representative plaintiff a petitioner whom it deemed to be less than adequate and lawyer-driven. The decision tempers the liberal...
|2 Years After Comcast, Little Has Changed|
Patrick Clayton, Christopher T. Micheletti; Zelle Hofmann Voelbel & Mason LLP;
April 1, 2015, previously published by Competition Law360 on March 18, 2015The U.S. Supreme Court¿s March 2013 decision in Comcast was heralded by many as a class certification ¿game-changer¿ that raised the bar for plaintiffs seeking class certification in competition and other class cases - particularly on the issue of whether plaintiffs needed to present classwide...
|Tampa Bay Buccaneers to Settle Cheerleaders’ Wage-and-Hour Class Action|
Benjamin A. Tulis; Jackson Lewis P.C.;
March 31, 2015, previously published on March 12, 2015The Tampa Bay Buccaneers have agreed to settle a class action lawsuit brought by its cheerleaders on May 19, 2014. Pierre-Val v. Buccaneers Ltd. Partnership, No. 14-cv-01182 (M.D. Fla.). The Buccaneers agreed to pay $825,000, with $264,000 of the settlement allocated to attorney’s fees. As a...
|No Rest Period Violation for Security Guards On Call during Breaks, California Court Rules|
Mark S. Askanas; Jackson Lewis P.C.;
March 30, 2015, previously published on February 10, 2015Reversing a trial court’s awarding of a $90 million judgment in a class action case for alleged rest period violations under California law, the California Court of Appeal has ruled that a security company had provided its security guards with proper rest periods, even though they were...
|California Court of Appeal Lowers the Bar on Ascertainability Requirement in Consumer Class Actions|
Robin A. Achen; Sheppard, Mullin, Richter & Hampton LLP;
March 30, 2015, previously published on March 26, 2015In Aguirre v. Amscan Holdings, Inc., Case No. 073059, 2015 Cal. App. LEXIS 214 (Cal. Ct. App. Feb. 11, 2015), a California Court of Appeal reversed the denial of certification of a putative class alleging violation of Civil Code Section 1747.08 of California’s Song Beverly Credit Card Act....