Skip to Content

Class Action Blog

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.

Class Action Blog
December 18, 2019

Eighth Circuit Rejects Solitary Californian’s Objections to Nationwide Class Settlement

Joshua Rawa and others filed a California class action against Monsanto alleging that its labeling on Roundup herbicide was misleading. After a California class was certified, class counsel filed another case in Missouri on behalf of a putative class of consumers from the other 49 states. After a nationwide settlement agreement was entered into, the California case was transferred to Missouri, where Monsanto has its headquarters, to consolidate all cases. After the Missouri court granted preliminary settlement approval, James Migliaccio, a member of the original California class, objected to the settlement on multiple grounds. The district court overruled his objections and granted final approval at which time, Migliaccio appealed. The Eighth Circuit concluded that the class was adequately represented and that the settlement was “reasonable, fair, and adequate,” and therefore affirmed.

Class Action Blog
March 21, 2019

Illinois Biometric Information Privacy Act Class Action to Proceed

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. 

Class Action Blog
February 27, 2019

The Ninth Circuit Clarifies Its Class Action Fairness Act of 2005 (CAFA) Amount in Controversy Removal Rules

Swift Transportation removed plaintiff’s Third Amended Class Action Complaint alleging that the federal court had CAFA subject matter jurisdiction. The district court remanded finding Swift failed to prove the amount in controversy exceeded $5 million.  The court ruled that only the amount of attorneys’ fees incurred to the date of removal was part of the amount in controversy. The Ninth Circuit reversed and remanded after concluding that the amount in controversy included all attorneys’ fees which the plaintiff was entitled to recover under the law.