By: Mark Casciari
Seyfarth Synopsis: On March 20, 2019, in Frank, et al. v. Gaos, No. 17-961, 2019 WL 1264582 (U.S. Mar. 20, 2019), the U.S. Supreme Court held that the Article III standing preconditions to federal court litigation, as described in Spokeo, Inc. v. Robins, 136 S.Ct. 1540 (2016), will not be undermined. The ruling is important for any
Continue Reading SCOTUS Opines on Article III Standing — More than a Statutory Violation is Needed
By Gerald L. Maatman, Jr. and Thomas E. Ahlering
Seyfarth Synopsis: As biometric technology has become more advanced and affordable, more companies and employers have begun implementing procedures and systems that rely on biometric data. Given the serious repercussions of compromised biometric data, a number of states have proposed or passed laws regulating the collection and storage of biometric
Continue Reading The Second Circuit Weighs In On Tidal Wave Of Class Actions Under The Illinois Biometric Privacy Act
By Gerald L. Maatman, Jr., Pamela Q. Devata, & Robert T. Szyba
Seyfarth Synopsis: Following remand from the U.S. Supreme Court, the Ninth Circuit found that the plaintiff suing Spokeo, Inc. under the Fair Credit Reporting Act alleged sufficient injury to establish standing to proceed in federal court and to proceed with his class action.
On August 15,
Continue Reading Spokeo: On Remand From The U.S. Supreme Court, The Ninth Circuit Finds Plaintiff Has Standing, Again
By Gerald L. Maatman, Jr. and John S. Marrese
Seyfarth Synopsis: In Harrington v. Sessions, No. 15-8009, No. 16-5285 & No. 16-5286 (D.C. Cir. July 21, 2017), the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit found that absent class members may intervene in an appellate court proceeding to pursue a Rule 23(f) petition abandoned by a settling
Continue Reading D.C. Circuit Finds That Absent Class Members May Intervene On Appeal To Pursue Rule 23(f) Petition Abandoned By Class Representative
By Gerald L. Maatman, Jr., Pamela Q. Devata, Robert T. Szyba, and Ephraim J. Pierre
Seyfarth Synopsis: In deciding Spokeo v. Robins, the U.S. Supreme Court reaffirmed that plaintiffs seeking to establish that they have standing to sue must show “an invasion of a legally protected interest” that is particularized and concrete — that is, the injury
Continue Reading Spokeo v. Robins: The U.S. Supreme Court Finds Concrete Injury Is Required Under Article III But Remands Back To The Ninth Circuit
By Gerald L. Maatman, Jr., Pamela Q. Devata, Robert T. Szyba
This morning the U.S. Supreme Court heard oral arguments in Spokeo, Inc. v. Robins, No. 13-1339. As our loyal blog readers know, this is a case that corporate counsel need to follow closely in light of the stakes for the future of class action litigation.
Spokeo arises
Continue Reading U.S. Supreme Court Oral Argument in Spokeo, Inc. v. Robins
By Gerald L. Maatman Jr. and Howard M. Wexler
Earlier this year, the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Texas dismissed a high profile lawsuit brought by the State of Texas against the EEOC regarding its “Enforcement Guidance on the Consideration of Arrest and Conviction Records in Employment Under Title VII. In State of Texas v. EEOC, Case
Continue Reading Showdown At The Fifth Circuit: Texas Files Opening Appellate Brief In Its Challenge Of The EEOC’s Criminal Background Guidance
By Laura Maechtlen and Brian Wong
It is not uncommon for an employer to face vague or overbroad class claims premised on one employee’s injury limited to a specific set of facts. However, in a recent ruling in Singleton v. BP Amoco Chemical Co., No. CVV-12-J-255-5 (N.D. Ala. April 3, 2012), an Alabama federal district court judge limited an
Continue Reading Standing Defenses In Class Action Litigation Under Title VII