After Citibank filed a debt-collection action against Jackson in state court, Jackson counterclaimed against Citibank and filed third party class action claims against Home Depot and Carolina Water Systems, Home Depot then removed the case to federal court. The district judge remanded the case to state court which the United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit affirmed. Justice Thomas authored the opinion for the five justice majority which affirmed, while Justice Alito wrote a dissenting opinion on behalf of the four dissenting justices.
As society becomes increasingly litigious, and as plaintiff attorneys market their services more aggressively, class action litigation is posing a rapidly growing threat to businesses in all sectors.
Lamps Plus employee, Varela, sued the company after the disclosure of the private tax information of more than 1,000 company employees. Because of an arbitration clause in his employment agreement, the company moved to send the case to arbitration. The district court sent the case to arbitration, but for the issues to be arbitrated classwide rather than individually. The United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit affirmed that ruling. The United States Supreme Court found that class arbitration is significantly different than individual arbitration.
In the 1990’s, Congress sought more stringent standards for filing securities class-action litigation. The Private Securities Litigation Reform Act (PSLRA) was passed in 1995 followed by the Securities Litigation Uniform Standards Act of 1998 (SLUSA). These reforms were aimed at preventing frivolous lawsuits in the sale of national securities and apply to both federal and state class-actions alleging fraudulent sales conduct.
The Supreme Court of Illinois ruled that the Rosenbach class action suit could proceed after finding that the plaintiff was an “aggrieved person” entitled to “seek liquidated damages and injunctive relief” for violations of the Biometric Information Privacy Act (Act) (740 ILCS 14/1 et seq.) without also alleging “some actual injury or adverse effect, beyond violation of his or her rights under the statute.” The court was not particularly concerned whether it was following the Supreme Court’s holding in Spokeo since the Illinois high court was addressing an Illinois statute.