Co-authored by Abad Lopez and Noah Finkel
Even in the face of an apparent victory, a company may be stuck with an unexpected and outsized attorneys’ fees tab. In a recent case that highlights the multifaceted perils of drawn out litigation, the Tenth Circuit affirmed a $3.4 million attorneys’ fees award—even though the jury rejected the majority of plaintiffs’
Continue Reading Bittersweet Victory: Court Affirms $3.4 Million Attorney’s Fee Award Despite Plaintiffs’ Defeat on Majority of Claims
Co-authored by Robert S. Whitman and Howard M. Wexler
Although the U.S. Open came to an end earlier this month in Flushing Meadows, New York, match point remained to be played for the tournament’s umpires. In Meyer v. United States Tennis Association, Judge Andrew Carter of the Southern District of New York shot a cross-court winner for the USTA,
Continue Reading Game, Set, and Match: USTA Aces Umpire Misclassification Case
Co-authored by Jacob Oslick and Timothy Rusche
California requires written waivers if an employee misses a second meal break, right? Not exactly, clarified the California Court of Appeal in Fayerweather v. Comcast Corp. Instead, a waiver only is needed if the employer makes an employee miss a second meal break and not if the break is voluntarily skipped. The court
Continue Reading The New Comcast Decision: Not Hungry? No Meal Break Waiver Needed.
Co-authored by Geoffrey Westbrook and Laura Maechtlen
With years in the making, the long-awaited decision of the California Supreme Court in Duran v. U.S. Bank has finally arrived and represents a significant victory for California employers. Duran is the first case to consider the now prevalent use of statistical evidence by class action plaintiffs to condense class certification briefing and/or
Continue Reading California Supreme Court Finds Plaintiffs’ Use of Statistical Evidence in Class Wage and Hour Litigation Doesn’t Add Up: Why California Employers Now Have a Higher Probability of Success After Duran v. U.S. Bank
By Kevin A. Fritz and Jennifer A. Riley
Merits-based (a/k/a “fail-safe”) classes have a long-settled reputation of being one of the best examples of the worst defined class. Fail-safe classes are those defined in terms of the merits (e.g., all who were victims of defendant’s wrongdoing). These classes are problematic because the class size varies depending on the
Continue Reading Double Fail!! Fail-Safe Class Fails To Gain Class Certification
Authored by Jim Harris
The California Supreme Court heard oral argument in two important cases involving employment-related class actions. From the tenor of and comments made at the argument, it appears likely that the ultimate results will be a mixed bag for employers.
The first case, Iskanian v. CLS Transportation of Los Angeles, LLC, which we reported on late
Continue Reading Let’s Play Two: California Supreme Court Hears Oral Argument in Two Important Class Action Cases
Co-authored by Richard Alfred and Rebecca Bromet
The Seventh Circuit ruled yesterday in Ervin v. OS Restaurant Services, Inc., Case No. 09-3029 (Jan. 18, 2011), that “there is no categorical rule against certifying a Rule 23(b)(3) state-law class action in a proceeding that also includes a collective action brought under the FLSA. In reaching this decision the Court