FindLaw | Find a Lawyer. Find Answers.

Library Search

• The Certification of Competition-Related Class Actions in Canada ( May 2006 )
  

  Although the first class action legislation was enacted in Canada more than twenty-five years ago and class proceedings are now a national phenomenon, Canadian courts still have not stated clearly the manner in which certification principles will be applied to class proceedings alleg¬ing antitrust violations.

• Class Action Fairness Act of 2005: New Bill Allows Some New Class Action Cases to Be Removed from State to Federal Court ( May 2005 )
  

  On Friday, February 18, 2005, President Bush signed the Class Action Fairness Act of 2005 ("the Act") into law. Amazingly, the Act, which its supporters say will curb the ability of plaintiffs' attorneys to abuse the class action procedure, was introduced, debated and passed by both houses of the Legislature in a mere three-week period.

• California Supreme Court Upholds Grant of Class Certification in Wage and Hour Class Action Case: Sav-on Drug Stores, Inc. v. Superior Court ( September 2004 )
  

  California will likely remain a hotbed of class action litigation against employers in light of the California Supreme Court's unanimous opinion in Sav-on Drug Stores, Inc. v. Superior Court (Rocher), S106718, issued on August 26, 2004. The Supreme Court considered whether the trial court abused its substantial discretion in certifying as a class action a suit for the recovery of alleged unpaid overtime compensation due to 600 to 1,400 of Sav-on Drug Stores' "Operations Managers" ("OMs") and "Assistant Managers" ("AMs") in California. The Court held that the trial court did not abuse its discretion and reversed the Court of Appeal's decision to the contrary.

• Class Action Fairness Act Tabled for 2004 ( July 2004 )
  

  A bill that everyone thought would pass has been rejected by the Senate. The Class Action Fairness Act was aimed at the abuse of class action lawsuits but did not receive the majority votes that it needed to pass. The vote was 44-43. Therefore, it is a dead issue for this election year.

• Dukes v. Wal-Mart: A Foreboding Class Certification Decision for Employers ( July 2004 )
  

  On June 21, 2004, a federal district court in San Francisco certified a nationwide class of approximately <strong>1.6 million</strong> current and former female employees of Wal-Mart who claim sex discrimination in promotions and pay at Wal-Mart stores around the country. <em>Dukes, et al. v. Wal-Mart Stores, Inc.</em>, No. C 01-02252 (N.D. Cal. June 21, 2004). Not only does the size of the class dwarf other previous employment class actions, but this may also be the first <strong>billion</strong> dollar employment discrimination case ever. The implications of this decision are profound and potentially frightening.

• An Analytical Framework for Opposing Class Certification Motions ( April 2004 )
  

  In any proposed certification, the opponent can analyze the class definition for legal sufficiency. If the class definition is legally sufficient, the opponent can analyze the likely jury issues presented for trial in the cases of the absent class members, to formulate the jury issues that can be submitted in the class representative's case, and to ascertain whether the answers to those jury issues will enable the trial court to enter a final judgment in the cases of the absent class members.

• Recent Developments In Pharmaceutical and Medical Device Litigation: Are Class Actions Still Viable? ( May 2004 )
  

  Attempts to certify classes in pharmaceutical and medical device cases tend to fail more often than they succeed. But new theories of injury and causation have emerged to make class cases appear more manageable. This article briefly considers recent trends in pharmaceutical and medical device class litigation.

• Terazosin Hydrochloride Antitrust Litigation ( March 2004 )
  

  In what has become known as the Hytrin generic drug patent antitrust litigation, the 11th Circuit recently vacated certification of the class because of the potential for significant conflict among class members. Specifically, the court held that wholesaler purchasers of Hytrin who experienced a net benefit from the allegedly illegal conduct could not be joined in a single class with those who had been harmed.