Posts

Supreme Court OKs Use of Averages and Statistical Analyses to Assess Class-Wide Injury

/in , , /by

The Supreme Court ruled today in Tyson Foods, Inc. v. Bouaphakeo, one of several major class action cases that are being decided in the Court’s current term. The issue in this case was whether differences among individual class members may be ignored and a class certified under the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure (or a collective action certified under the Fair Labor Standards Act), where liability and damages are determined with statistical techniques that presume all class members are identical to the average observed in a sample. A second issue facing the Court was whether a class action may be certified or maintained when the class contains hundreds of members who were not injured and have no legal right to any damages.

In a 6-2 win for class actions, Justice Kennedy, writing for the Court’s majority, held that “This case presents no occasion for adoption of broad and categorical rules governing the use of representative and statistical evidence in class actions.” The court did not, however, decide the second issue as to whether a class can be certified where not every member has suffered damages. It said, “That question is not yet fairly presented by this case.”

Overall, this is a great result for the long-term viability of class action litigation, since the majority of class action cases are made up of class members who have varying individual damages. Statistical samples taken to determine average damages incurred per class member are commonplace, particularly in cases where there are tens of thousands, or hundreds of thousands, of class members. Today’s decision upholds the long-held notion in class action jurisprudence that class cases are maintainable, even when damages incurred by individual class members are not identical.

Supreme Court Rules in Favor of Consumers in Class Action Case

/in /by

The Supreme Court ruled today in Campbell-Ewold Co. v Gomez, one of several major class action cases that will be decided during the Court’s current term. The issue in this case is whether a putative class action case becomes moot when the defendant offers complete relief to the named plaintiff, even if the plaintiff rejects that individual offer in order to protect the interests of the entire class of persons represented. In a 6-3 decision, Justice Ginsberg, writing for the Court’s majority, held that “[a]n unaccepted settlement offer or offer of judgment does not moot a plaintiff’s case, so the District Court retained jurisdiction to adjudicate Gomez’s complaint.” 

This is a great result for class representatives who, all too often, after filing class action lawsuits on behalf of others who were similarly subjected to unlawful business practices, face “bribes” by defendants in attempts to “pick off” the class representatives. These bribes come in the form of offering to pay the class representative much more than what his or her individual damages are worth as a way to kill off the class action lawsuit so that a company is not held liable to the many hundreds or thousands of people who were subjected to the same wrongful treatment.  

If you feel that you have been the victim of unfair business practices or have questions about consumer class action lawsuits, contact us today.

Vildan Teske, Doug Micko and Marisa Katz Present a CLE Update on the U.S. Supreme Court’s 2015 Term

/in , , , /by

On October 12, 2015, Teske Katz Kitzer & Rochel partners Vildan Teske, Doug Micko and Marisa Katz presented a continuing legal education (CLE) seminar on the U.S. Supreme Court’s 2015 term.

The presentation included an overview of the major employment law-related cases decided in the last term and the implications of such decisions in everyday practice. The seminar also touched on the Court’s current term and key cases that will be decided in 2016 both in the employment and consumer class action areas. The presentation was made as part of Minnesota CLE’s Employment Law Webcast Series.

Marisa Katz & Doug Micko Present Supreme Court Update

/in , /by

On September 8, 2015, Teske Katz Kitzer & Rochelpartners Marisa Katz and Doug Micko co-presented a continuing legal education (CLE) seminar focused on important employment law cases from the United States Supreme Court’s 2015 Term. The presentation was made at the request of the Minnesota Chapter of the National Employment Lawyers Association (MN-NELA), a member-based professional organization made up of attorneys who represent workers with employment disputes.

To learn more about how the U.S. Supreme Court’s recent decisions impact employment law and how that may impact you as an employee, or if you have any employment law questions, please do not hesitate to contact Teske Katz Kitzer & Rochel today.

Vildan Teske Co-Moderates FBA Panel on Diversity in Legal Practice

/in , , /by

Vildan Teske co-moderated a continuing legal education (CLE) seminar today sponsored by the Minnesota Chapter of the Federal Bar Association entitled “Cultivating a Diverse Pipeline of New Attorneys in Uncertain Legal Times.”  The seminar was followed by a reception at the Radisson Blu in downtown Minneapolis.  The CLE kicked off with remarks by U.S. Magistrate Judge Tony N. Leung. The panel of speakers included Valerie Jensen, Executive Director of Twin Cities Diversity in Practice; Anthony Winer, Professor of Law at William Mitchell College of Law; Tracy M. Smith, Deputy General Counsel for the University of Minnesota, and; Dr. Luiza Dreasher, Assistant Dean and Director of the Office of Multicultural and International Inclusion at the William Mitchell College of Law.  The seminar explored the challenges, obstacles, and the successes in achieving a diverse pipeline of attorneys in Minnesota, as well as the effect of recent U.S. Supreme Court opinions on admission decisions in higher education.

Click here for Minnesota Lawyer’s coverage of the event.