On April 11, U.S. Magistrate Judge Sallie Kim of the Northern District of California issued a two-page order vacating judgment and final approval of a class action settlement based upon the parties’ failure to send correct notices to more than 300 class members. See Tyler Smith et al. v. Pacific Personnel Services Inc., No.
Partners Virginia B. Flynn, Chad R. Fuller, and Alan D. Wingfield of Troutman Sanders LLP are mentioned in a March 22 Law360 article regarding the United States Supreme Court’s decision to grant review of PDR Network v. Carlton & Harris Chiropractic, a Telephone Consumer Protection Act class action.
PDR Network is a company that
Parties to a class action lawsuit in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania have asked for final approval of a $4 million proposed Telephone Consumer Protection Act settlement in a “wrong number” case. Plaintiff Robert Ward alleged that defendant Flagship Credit Acceptance, LLC called him in violation of the TCPA, as
A new Florida class action alleges that a car dealership misrepresented that it would make a “soft” credit inquiry, or pull, rather than a “hard” pull – and then made a hard pull. While the lawsuit alleges a straight-up misrepresentation causing harm to the consumer’s credit standing, the lawsuit illustrates the importance of accuracy in
On March 11, the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California approved a settlement stipulation between the parties in the long-running Fair Credit Reporting Act litigation involving Spokeo, Inc. See Thomas Robins v. Spokeo, Inc., Case No. 2:10-cv-05306 (C.D. Cal.). The settlement brings an end to the dispute that led to the
On February 26, the Northern District of California held in Banneck v. Federal National Mortgage Association that the defendant, commonly referred to as “Fannie Mae,” was not a consumer reporting agency, or “CRA,” as defined in the Fair Credit Reporting Act, granting summary judgment in a putative nationwide class action. The lawsuit had alleged violations
On February 26, the Supreme Court held in a unanimous decision that the deadline to seek permission for an interlocutory appeal of a decision granting or denying class certification cannot be extended through equitable tolling. Rule 23(f) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure allows for an interlocutory appeal of class certification orders, but
The Seventh Circuit recently vacated a decision by the Southern District of Indiana in which the lower court had rescinded an earlier decision to certify a class action in a suit brought by a group of used car dealerships.
In Red Barn Motors, Inc. v. Nextgear Capital, Inc., No. 18-1409, 2019 U.S. App. LEXIS 4303
Requiring an employee or consumer to submit any dispute to binding arbitration as a condition of employment or purchase of a product or service is commonly referred to as “forced arbitration.” Many times, the employee or consumer is required to waive their right to sue or to participate in a class action lawsuit. Critics argue
The Ninth Circuit recently invalidated the Central District of California’s local rule providing a strict deadline to file class certification motions no later than 90 days after service of a complaint. Specifically, the panel held that the district court’s strict application of its local rules to the timeliness of the plaintiff’s motion was inconsistent with
