The United States Supreme Court heard oral argument last month on the issue of whether a federal court of appeals has jurisdiction to review an order denying class certification after the named plaintiffs voluntarily dismiss their individual claims with prejudice. The case comes to the Supreme Court from the Ninth Circuit’s decision in Baker v. Microsoft Corp. In Baker, a putative class of owners of Microsoft Corporation’s (Microsoft) Xbox 360® video game console filed suit, alleging that the console suffered from a design defect that gouged game discs. Microsoft opposed Plaintiffs’ motion to certify the class. The District Court denied certification, citing comity considerations and relying on the class certification denial in a similar case. Thereafter, Plaintiffs filed a 23(f) petition for interlocutory appeal with the Ninth Circuit, which was denied. The Plaintiffs then voluntarily dismissed the case with prejudice, with the express purpose of obtaining immediate Ninth Circuit review of the District Court’s denial of class certification. Plaintiffs filed an appeal from the final judgment, challenging the denial of class certification. On appeal, Microsoft argued that the Ninth Circuit lacked jurisdiction because a voluntary dismissal with prejudice does not sufficiently affect the merits of the substantive claims to constitute...
Author: Caroline E. Oks
New Jersey Appellate Division Holds Consumer Fraud Act Plaintiffs Can Recoup Attorneys’ Fees for Successfully Defending Against Counterclaims
In an issue of first impression, the New Jersey Appellate Division held in Garmeaux v. DNV Concepts, Inc. t/a The Bright Acre that a prevailing plaintiff in a Consumer Fraud Act (“CFA”) case is entitled to recover attorneys’ fees expended to defend an “inextricably intertwined” counterclaim. The to-be-published opinion also reaffirmed that New Jersey does not impose a strict proportionality requirement on attorney fee awards.
Third Circuit Holds That Challenges to the Validity of a Contract Containing an Arbitration Provision Can Only Be Adjudicated by the Arbitrator
In a recent precedential decision, South Jersey Sanitation Co., Inc. v. Applied Underwriters Captive Risk Assurance Co., Inc., the Third Circuit held that although arbitration agreements may be invalidated by generally applicable contract defenses, like fraud, in order for the court to decide the issue, the challenge “must focus exclusively on the arbitration provision, rather than on the contract as a whole.” “If the challenge encompasses the contract as a whole, the validity of that contract, like all other disputes arising under the contract, is a matter for the arbitrator to decide.”
Eighth Circuit Relies on Spokeo to Hold That Retention of Personal Information, Without More, Does Not Satisfy Article III’s Injury-in-Fact Requirement
The United States Supreme Court decision in Spokeo v. Robins, in which the Court considered whether a claim of statutory damages was sufficient to confer Article III standing, left much to be desired in terms of guidance for lower courts and litigants. Nonetheless, the Eighth Circuit’s recent refusal to revive a putative class action over Charter Communications Inc.’s allegedly indefinite retention of consumer data illuminated a way for defendants to trim claims of bare statutory violations, while clarifying how Spokeo should be applied.
Notwithstanding a recent trend of seemingly anti-arbitration decisions in the state courts, a New Jersey District Court recently dismissed a consumer fraud complaint that it found to be duplicative of a prior arbitration award. In 2009, the plaintiff purchased a vehicle, and then leased an additional car from the same dealer in 2010. Despite signing agreements to arbitrate with the dealer, the plaintiff filed a complaint in state court against the dealer, Metro Honda, which was dismissed on the ground that the arbitration agreements were enforceable and required her to arbitrate her dispute. Plaintiff filed a demand for arbitration, citing a variety of consumer fraud statutes. An arbitration award was entered denying all of the plaintiff’s claims, and she neither appealed nor moved to vacate or modify the award.
New Jersey Supreme Court Holds Denial of Right to Jury Trial Not Within Panoply of Sanctions in a Trial Court’s Arsenal
Recently, the New Jersey Supreme Court unanimously held that trial courts may not deprive civil litigants of their constitutionally protected right to a jury trial as a sanction for failure to comply with a procedural rule. In Williams v. American Auto Logistics, the pro se plaintiff’s complaint did not include a jury demand, but the defendant’s answer did. The defendant later sought to waive its jury demand, but the plaintiff withheld his consent, which was required by court rules. Notwithstanding the lack of consent, the trial judge granted the request to waive the jury as a sanction against the plaintiff for his failure to provide the pre-trial disclosures required by Rule 4:25-7. The Appellate Division affirmed the trial court’s waiving of the jury as a sanction for the plaintiff’s failure to comply with Rule 4:25-7.
Supreme Court in Spokeo Holds Plaintiffs Must Allege More Than a Bare Procedural Violation to Stand Up for Their Rights
After much anticipation, the United States Supreme Court issued its decision in Spokeo v. Robins, a case that many believed would finally establish a definitive ruling as to whether a federal statute which awards statutory damages to those impacted is sufficient to confer Article III standing. The question is particularly relevant in the class action context where class members could be awarded statutory damages in the absence of any actual damages. Unfortunately, although the Court considered the scope of the injury-in-fact requirement, the 6-2 decision still leaves the standing question open to interpretation by courts and by both plaintiffs and defendants.
In a recent precedential 2-1 decision, Chavez, et al. v. Dole Food Company, Inc., et al., the Third Circuit emphasized the importance of the “first filed” rule and affirmed the dismissal of a Delaware suit that was “materially identical” to one first brought in Louisiana. The Circuit Court reiterated that “[t]he ‘first filed’ rule is a well-established policy of the federal courts that in all cases of concurrent jurisdiction, the court which first has possession of the subject must decide it. This rule permits the district courts, in their discretion, to stay, transfer, or dismiss cases that are duplicates of those brought previously in other federal fora.”
Third Circuit Confirms Prospective Application of New Jersey Supreme Court’s Shelton Decision, Dooming Underlying Class Action
In a recent precedential decision, the Third Circuit, in Bohus, et al. v. Restaurant.com, held that the New Jersey Supreme Court’s Shelton decision — responding to a question of law certified by the Third Circuit as to the proper interpretation of the Truth in Consumer Contract, Warranty, and Notice Act (“TCCWNA”) — may be applied prospectively, thus defeating the class claims and leaving only two individual claims for a $100 penalty.
Third Circuit Confirms That Challenged Expert Testimony Must Survive Daubert Challenges in Order to Demonstrate Conformity with Rule 23
Drawing upon its own precedent and that of the Supreme Court in Comcast v. Behrend, the Third Circuit recently held in In re Blood Reagents Antitrust Litig. that a district court must resolve any Daubert challenges to proffered expert testimony as part of its “rigorous analysis” of the requirements for class certification.