In a recent decision, the California Supreme Court held that plaintiffs do not need to demonstrate a plan for identifying and notifying class members in order to certify a class, as long as they can point to “objective characteristics and common transaction facts” that will allow the court to ascertain the class in the future.
Plaintiffs Clint Millien and Felipe Kelly sued Madison Square Garden for its hiring practices relating to applicants’ failure to disclose previous criminal activity when applying for food preparation positions. The plaintiffs claim that Madison Square Garden imposed too strict of requirements for criminal disclosures that had a disparate impact on minority applicants. The parties agreed
Background
In Varela v. Lamps Plus, Inc.,
In Ewing v. Encore Solar, LLC, No. 3:18-cv-02247 (S.D. Cal. January 22, 2019), plaintiff Anton Ewing filed a suit against defendants Encore Solar, LLC; Sunrun, Inc. (“Sunrun”); Bargain Electricity, Inc. (“Bargain Electricity”); and individual employees of Encor and Bargain Electricity for violation of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act. Ewing alleged that all defendants were liable
On November 1, the Northern District of California announced new Procedural Guidance for Class Action Settlements, aimed at increasing transparency in class settlements and the disbursement of class settlement funds. The Guidance is consistent with, but broader than, the latest amendments to Rule 23 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, effective December 1,
In a decision that reversed a $10 million “collective action” arbitration award, the Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals held that whether class or collective arbitration is authorized by an arbitration agreement is a “gateway” decision to be made by the district court, not the arbitrator. The case is Herrington v. Waterstone Mortgage Corp., No.