The U.S. Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals handed down a decision Monday clarifying that disputes over the interpretation of class-action waivers in employment agreements must be decided by a district court – not an arbitrator.

A group of lawyers, judges and lawmakers have filed a proposal to revise the state’s class-action statute so that they mirror federal rules.

With one click of the mouse, consumers can sign away their right to pursue a claim in court or take part in a class action.

The justices of the U.S. Supreme Court have an opportunity to dramatically change the landscape of securities fraud class action litigation by limiting, or perhaps overruling altogether, a decision upon which plaintiffs have relied for decades.

Can an employer, faced with a purported class action under the Fair Labor Standards Act, avoid litigation by immediately offering a settlement to the sole plaintiff before a class is certified?

12-2216 Johnson v. Meriter health Services Employee Retirement Plan

11-8029 & 12-8030 Butler v. Sears, Roebuck & Co.

12-8020, 12-8021, 12-8022, 12-8023, 12-8024, 12-8025, 12-8026 & 12-8027 In re Abbott Laboratories, Inc.

12-2205 Bolden v. Walsh Construction Co.

12-8010 Matz v. Household International Tax Reduction Investment Plan

11-3261 Smentek v. Dart

5-1-1210-2407 & 11-2133 Thorogood v. Sears, Roebuck & Co.

11-1095 Appert v. Morgan Stanley Dean Witter, Inc.

11-1816 & 11-1817 Howland v. First American Title Ins. Co.

10-3848 Ross v. RBS Citizens, N.A.

10-2514 Messner v. Northshore University HealthSystem

It always comes down to the cash. That point was illustrated in a decision handed down last week by a New Jersey federal judge who had to decide whether two warring law firms should share $2.45 million in fees allocated as part of a class action settlement.

Late in 2010, waiters at Maggiano’s Little Italy in Boston reached a $1.3 million settlement with the chain’s owners over alleged tip misappropriations.

11-3030 & 11-3163 In re Trans Union Corp. Privacy Litigation

11-8020 Creative Montessori Learning Centers v. Ashford Gear, LLC

11-8017 LG Display Co., Ltd., v. Madigan

Employment ERISA; class actions; attorney fees

Civil Procedure Class actions

Civil Procedure Class actions

Civil Procedure Class actions

Civil Procedure Class actions; privity A denial of class certifications is not binding on unnamed putative class members. The District Court’s injunction was independently improper because Smith was not a party to the federal suit and was not covered by any exception to the rule against nonparty preclusion. Generally, a party “is ‘[o]ne by or against whom a lawsuit is ...

Securities Securities fraud; class actions; loss causation Securities fraud plaintiffs need not prove loss causation in order to obtain class certification. It is undisputed that securities fraud plaintiffs must prove certain  things in order to invoke Basic ’s rebuttable presumption of reliance. According  to the Court of Appeals, EPJ Fund had to prove the separate element of loss  causation in ...

Civil Procedure Statute of limitations; tolling; class actions Where a plaintiff in a proposed class action in state court voluntarily dismisses the case, the statute of limitations is tolled during the period the suit was pending. “Sawyer did not have any way to prevent Park Bank from dismissing the original suit—nor did the state court permit Sawyer to intervene and ...

Civil Procedure Class actions Where doubts about a named plaintiff in a class action threaten the interests of the rest of the class, it was error to certify the class. “The record raises serious doubts concerning the truthfulness of Pezl’s testimony about his familiarity with the terms of the contract with the Blue Book. The district court erred in treating ...

When the U.S. Supreme Court rules in the case Wal-Mart Stores v. Dukes, it will not only decide whether more than 1.5 million female Wal-Mart workers can proceed as a class in a lawsuit alleging that the company systemically paid them less than male employees.