Last week, the Eighth Circuit Court of Appeals rejected the district court’s approval of the class action settlement in the Target data breach litigation. See In re Target Corp. Customer Data Sec. Breach Litig., 2017 U.S. App. Lexis 1767 (8th Cir. Feb. 1 2017).
The Ninth Circuit recently issued a decision that increases the level of antitrust risk exposure faced by companies.
Last week, the Ninth Circuit deepened the divide among the Circuits regarding ascertainability in class certification. In Briseno v. ConAgra Foods, Inc., 2017 U.S. App. Lexis 20 (9th Cir. Jan. 3, 2017), the Ninth Circuit rejected the Third Circuit’s line of authority (see Carrera v. Bayer Corp., 727 F.3d 300 (3d Cir. 2013) and Byrd v. Aaron’s Inc., 784 F.3d 154 (3d Cir. 2015)) which requires plaintiffs’ counsel to show ascertainability by demonstrating an administratively feasible and reliable method to determine class membership at the class certification stage.
Seventh Circuit Sides with Plaintiffs and Reinstates Consumer Data Breach Class Action Previously Dismissed for Lack of Standing
Last week the Seventh Circuit reinstated the Neiman Marcus data breach class action, holding that plaintiffs had satisfied Article III’s standing requirements based on at least some of the injuries they alleged. In doing so, the Seventh Circuit became the first federal court of appeals to rule on a challenge to the standing of purported data breach victims in light of the Supreme Court’s decision in Clapper v. Amnesty International, 133 S. Ct. 1138 (2013), and diverged from the growing majority of federal district courts that have held similar allegations are insufficient to confer standing.
In today’s increasingly data-driven world, compliance with discovery requirements can mean production of hundreds of thousands of pages of documents, if not millions. Federal Rule of Evidence 502(d) was enacted to reduce the costs and risks associated with discovery, and to allow a federal court to protect the privilege of documents that have been inadvertently disclosed. Federal Rule of Evidence 502(d) provides that “a federal court may order that the privilege or protection is not waived by disclosure connected with the litigation pending before the court – in which event the disclosure is also not a waiver in any other federal or state proceeding.”
While most ERISA litigators are anxiously awaiting the Supreme Court’s decision in Fifth Third Bancorp v. Dudenhoeffer, (Sup. Ct. Dkt. 12-741), they should also be paying close attention to the Supreme Court’s upcoming decision in Halliburton v. Erica P. John Fund, Inc. (Sup. Dkt. 13-317).
Yesterday, the Supreme Court issued its long awaited decision in American Express v. Italian Colors Restaurant. The decision is a must read for every business.
The Supreme Court has granted a certiorari petition in Mississippi v. Au Optronics Corp., S. Ct. Case No. 12-2036, and agreed to decide an issue that will impact the growing number of attorney general civil lawsuits around the country: "[w]hether a state's parens patriae action is removable as a 'mass action' under the Class Action Fairness Act when the state is the sole plaintiff, the claims arise under state law, and the state attorney general possesses statutory and common-law authority to assert all claims in the complaint."
Last week, the Sixth Circuit issued a ruling which defined the standard in the Sixth Circuit for liability under Section 11 of the Securities Act of 1933, created a circuit split, and likely garnered the attention of the Supreme Court.
A criminal antitrust case involving two bagged ice producers that pleaded guilty to conspiring "to supress and eliminate competition" was recently concludeded in U.S. District Court in Cincinnati. While KMK was not involved in this case, it does bring to mind a few key considerations for companies and their attorneys to weigh when faced with bet-the-company criminal and civil litigation.
- Ohio Foreclosure Reform
- House Bill 390
- Trademark Litigation
- Drug Enforcement Agency
- Medical Marijuana
- Cybersecurity Regulation
- Craft Brewing
- Intellectual Property
- Copyright Law
- Seventh Circuit
- Environmental Law
- Fair Housing Act
- Health Care Act
- Healthcare Reform
- Pregnancy Discrimination
- Pregnancy Discrimination Act
- Religion Discrimination
- Supreme Court
- Federal Rules of Civil Procedure
- Electronically Stored Information
- Sedona Conference
- Workplace Accommodations
- Americans with Disabilities Act
- Data Breach
- Cybersecurity and Privacy Law
- Cyber Insurance
- Receivership Statute
- Sixth Circuit
- Employment Litigation
- Business Process Improvement
- National Labor Relations Board
- National Labor Relations Act
- Labor Law
- Labor & Employment Law
- Employer Rules
- Employer Policies
- Employer Handbook
- Predictive Coding
- TAR ( Technology Assisted Review)
- E-Discovery Project Plan
- Rule 34
- Employment Law
- Rule 26
- Lower Costs
- Quality Representation
- Rule 45
- Securities Law
- Electronic Data Discovery
- 2006 FRCP E-Discovery Amendments
- Land Use & Zoning
- Statute of Limitations
- Non-breaching fiduciary
- Social Media
- E-Discovery Case Law
- Real Estate Impact Fee
- Construction Litigation
- Federal Rule 23.1
- Federal Rule
- Bet-the-Company Litigation
- Stock Drop
- Target Class Action Settlement Temporarily Upended
- Revisiting Standing -- Ninth Circuit Opens Door For Antitrust Exposure
- Another Shot at Ascertainability in Class Certification
- Ohio Foreclosure Reform Brings Standardization and Modernization to County Foreclosure Processes and Paves the Way for the Expedited Foreclosure of Vacant and Abandoned Residential Properties
- Medical Marijuana Creates Unanswered Trademark Litigation Issues
- CyberSecurity News: Spokeo, Galaria and Braitberg
- Trademarks And Craft Brewing: What Do Federal Courts Think Of Craft Beer Lovers?
- 2, 4, 6, 8! Who Does Big Fashion Appreciate? The Sixth Circuit Protects Clothing Design In A Thrilling Overtime Victory.
- Seventh Circuit Sides with Plaintiffs and Reinstates Consumer Data Breach Class Action Previously Dismissed for Lack of Standing
- Summary of Recent United States Supreme Court Decisions