Plaintiff died before plaintiff’s counsel had filed a motion for class certification. The named plaintiff brought a putative class action against his employer alleging wage-related claims. The Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court (SJC) addressed counsel’s and a court’s authority to protect the interests of putative class members when the named plaintiff dies before a motion for class certification is filed and no substitute plaintiff appears.
Upon death of putative class representative before a motion for class certification is filed, lawyer’s authority to act for client terminates. For similar reasons, the court concluded that plaintiffs lacked standing to seek injunctive relief. In other words, according to the district court, plaintiffs received the “benefit of the bargain.” Accordingly, plaintiffs failed to plead an “injury-in-fact” to satisfy Article III standing requirements. In granting the motion and dismissing the complaint, the district court concluded that plaintiffs lacked standing because they failed to allege an actual product defect or that the product was worth any less than what they paid for it. Rather, plaintiffs alleged they suffered an “economic injury,” claiming they would not have purchased the product, would have paid less for the product, or would have purchased a safer product if defendants had disclosed the safety risks. The products at issue were not subject to a product recall, and plaintiffs did not otherwise allege the products failed to meet any specific safety standard required by law. 27, 2022)įailure to plead facts demonstrating “economic harm” arising from purchase of allegedly unsafe consumer products warrants dismissal.ĭefendant moved to dismiss a putative class action arising from the purchase of its products, which, according to plaintiffs, were associated with undisclosed safety risks. Eleventh Circuit declares that a sua sponte order of remand under CAFA is unreviewable.Ninth Circuit reverses remand to state court, finding district court erred in disregarding reasonable assumptions in support of CAFA’s amount in controversy requirement.
Seventh Circuit rules on CAFA’s mandatory “local controversy” exception.Fifth Circuit holds that actual findings on unsuccessful claims must be considered in awarding attorneys’ fees to prevailing class counsel as part of class settlement.Fourth Circuit denies objection to attorneys’ fees calculation under CAFA’s coupon settlement provisions.Third Circuit reiterates standard of review for Rule 23(f) petitions challenging class certification rulings and grants review.Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts rules that lawyer’s authority to act terminates upon death of named plaintiff before a motion for class certification is filed.This GT Newsletter summarizes recent class-action decisions from across the United States.
0 kommentar(er)
