Skip to Content (Press Enter)

Skip to Nav (Press Enter)

Class Actions

Subscribe to California Appellate Tracker

Thank you for your desire to subscribe to Severson & Werson’s Appellate Tracker Weblog. In order to subscribe, you must provide a valid name and e-mail address. This too will be retained on our server. When you push the “subscribe button”, we will send an electronic mail to the address that you provided asking you to confirm your subscription to our Weblog. By pushing the “subscribe button”, you represent and warrant that you are over the age of 18 years old, are the owner/authorized user of that e-mail address, and are entitled to receive e-mails at that address. Our weblog will retain your name and e-mail address on its server, or the server of its web host. However, we won’t share any of this information with anyone except the Firm’s employees and contractors, except under certain extraordinary circumstances described on our Privacy Policy and (About The Consumer Finance Blog/About the Appellate Tracker Weblog) Page. NOTICE AND AGREEMENT REGARDING E-MAILS AND CALLS/TEXT MESSAGES TO LAND-LINE AND WIRELESS TELEPHONES: By providing your contact information and confirming your subscription in response to the initial e-mail that we send you, you agree to receive e-mail messages from Severson & Werson from time-to-time and understand and agree that such messages are or may be sent by means of automated dialing technology. If you have your email forwarded to other electronic media, including text messages and cellular telephone by way of VoIP, internet, social media, or otherwise, you agree to receive my messages in that way. This may result in charges to you. Your agreement and consent also extend to any other agents, affiliates, or entities to whom our communications are forwarded. You agree that you will notify Severson & Werson in writing if you revoke this agreement and that your revocation will not be effective until you notify Severson & Werson in writing. You understand and agree that you will afford Severson & Werson a reasonable time to unsubscribe you from the website, that the ability to do so depends on Severson & Werson’s press of business and access to the weblog, and that you may still receive one or more emails or communications from weblog until we are able to unsubscribe you.

Retired former lab employees who sued the University of California claiming that it had unconstitutionally impaired their contractual rights to post-retirement health benefits were entitled to class certification after management of their health benefits plans passed to successor manager of the lab, who proceeded to institute less favorable policies. Read More

The trial court abused its discretion in denying class certification to two consolidated cases seeking tax refunds on behalf of LLCs which had paid tax under a statute later determined to be unconstitutional, since the proposed class was ascertainable, and presented a predominant common issue. Read More

In a junk fax case brought under the TCPA, the recipient's "prior express invitation or permission," like consent in an unsolicited telephone call case, is an affirmative defense with respect to which the court, when weighing class certification, considers only the defenses the defendant has actually advanced and for which it has presented evidence. Read More

American Pipe tolling during the pendency of an initial class action does not toll the statute of limitations for a follow-on class action, but only for individual suits by members of the putative class in the initial class action. Read More

A second class action is entitled to American Pipe tolling of the statute of limitations during the pendency of a first class action on the same claim if the first action is dismissed for lack of an adequate class representative and a new named plaintiff is promptly added. Read More

Although inadmissibility alone is not a proper basis to reject evidence submitted in support of class certification, the district court should still test expert evidence by the Daubert standard and consider whether it is likely plaintiff will be able to prove the same facts with admissible evidence by the time of trial. Read More

Judgment in earlier wage & hour class action that employees filed against their staffing company employer barred later suit on the same claims by same employees against the firm where they worked since that firm was the staffing company’s agent with respect to payroll matters. Read More

If the forum state's choice-of-law rules require the application of only one state's laws to the entire class, then the representation of multiple states within the class does not pose a barrier to class certification, but if class claims require adjudication under the laws of multiple states, then the court must determine whether common questions will predominate over individual issues. Read More

A trial court does not abuse its discretion in denying class certification to a plaintiff in a suit challenging a hospital’s billing practices when any reasonable value determinations concerning the services provided to putative class members would substantially involve individual considerations regarding the patients' treatment, insurance, and charges. Read More

A plaintiff seeking to remand a case to state court cannot meet his or her burden of proving that at least 2/3rds or more of the class members are citizens of the home state when the plaintiff’s definition of the class makes it impossible to determine the class size. Read More

Uncertainty regarding class members’ damages does not prevent certification of a class as long as a valid method has been proposed for calculating those damages such as, here, a full refund of the purchase price based on defendant’s suggested retail price and the price the individual plaintiff paid.  Read More

A collective bargaining agreement explicitly requires arbitration of wage and hour claims by referencing a wage order; so long as a Private Attorney General Act claim survives, decertification of a class is not immediately appealable. Read More

Trial court did not abuse its discretion in denying class certification in this suit for overtime compensation by claims examiners, since plaintiff had not shown that it could prove, by common evidence, that all of the claims examiners in the proposed class actually worked overtime; hence there was no preponderance of common issues.   Read More

A Court of Appeals lacks jurisdiction to entertain an appeal from a district court order denying class certification or striking class allegations after the named plaintiff has voluntarily dismissed his individual claims.  Read More

Overturning prior precedent, the Ninth Circuit holds that the filing of a class action tolls the statute of limitations for a later class action alleging similar claims.  Read More

1 3 4 5 6