Proskauer on Advertising Law
Proskauer on Advertising Law

Tag Archives: Supreme Court

If Class Action Litigants Could Turn Back Time (The Text Would Have Said So)

Last week, the Supreme Court unanimously reversed a Ninth Circuit decision, resolving a circuit split in ruling that Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23(f)’s 14-day deadline for a losing party to file a petition for permission to appeal an order granting or denying class certification is not subject to equitable tolling. Nutraceutical Corp. v. Lambert, … Continue Reading

SCOTUS to Decide If Courts Must Defer to the FCC’s Interpretation of “Unsolicited Advertisements” under the TCPA

On November 13, 2018, the Supreme Court agreed to consider the amount of deference a federal court is required to give the Federal Communications Commission in determining what constitutes an unsolicited advertisement within the meaning of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act (TCPA). PDR Network v. Carlton & Harris, No. 17-1705. The case is scheduled for … Continue Reading

Kimberly-Clark Unable to Flush Wet Wipes Case

On December 10, 2018, the Supreme Court denied certiorari in Kimberly-Clark Corp, v. Davidson, No. 18-304 (2018), in which Kimberly-Clark sought to overturn a controversial Ninth Circuit decision allowing a plaintiff in a false advertising case to seek injunctive relief on behalf of an alleged consumer class notwithstanding that plaintiff’s complaint acknowledged she was aware … Continue Reading

Supreme Court Briefing Begins Over Equitable Tolling of Rule 23(f) Deadline

Our readers may recall that last year, the Supreme Court ruled that a plaintiff in a putative class action cannot subvert the discretionary nature of Rule 23(f) interlocutory review by voluntarily dismissing his case after denial of class certification to obtain an appeal from the denial of class certification as a matter of right.  We … Continue Reading

Game Over: Supreme Court Denies Plaintiff’s Class Certification Appeal after Voluntary Dismissal in Xbox 360 Lawsuit

Recently, the Supreme Court in Microsoft Corp. v. Baker, 137 S. Ct. 1702 (2017), held that the plaintiff in a putative class action involving Xbox 360 game consoles could not appeal from the District Court’s denial of class certification after plaintiff voluntarily dismissed his claims with prejudice.  While 28 U.S.C. § 1291 allows appeals from final … Continue Reading

Supreme Court: Class Action Plaintiffs Must Show ‘Concrete’ Harm to Satisfy Article III

In a 6-2 decision, the Supreme Court, in an opinion authored by Justice Alito, held that the Ninth Circuit’s Article III standing analysis in Robins v. Spokeo was incomplete because it focused solely on whether the plaintiff had alleged a particularized injury, and failed to assess whether the alleged injury was “concrete”.  Although Spokeo was … Continue Reading

Want to Settle Before Class Certification? The Supreme Court Raises the Stakes

Recently, the U.S. Supreme Court held in Campbell-Ewald Co. v. Gomez, a putative class action case, that an unaccepted pre-certification settlement offer to the named plaintiff does not moot either the plaintiff’s claim or that of the supposed class.  The case involved a claim under the Telephone Consumer Protection Act (“TCPA”) and was decided on … Continue Reading

When it Comes to Arbitration Agreement Class Action Waivers, Concepcion is Still the Law, Even in California.

In 2014, we blogged about a California state appellate court decision invalidating the arbitration clause in DIRECTV’s consumer contracts. We found that California decision to be noteworthy because it seemed to fly in the face of the U.S. Supreme Court’s decision in AT&T Mobility v. Concepcion, 563 U.S. 333, 352 (2011), which invalidated California’s ban … Continue Reading

Clarification for Class Action Settlements May Be on the Line As Supreme Court Grants Cert in TCPA Case

Last year, in Gomez v. Campbell-Ewald Co., No. 13-55486, 2014 WL 4654478 (9th Cir. Sept. 19, 2014), the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit held that offers of complete relief made to individual plaintiffs under Fed. R. Civ. P. 68 do not moot either individual or class claims. This holding mirrors decisions by … Continue Reading
LexBlog