Category Archives: Litigation

Subscribe to Litigation RSS Feed

Northern District of Illinois Commences Mandatory Initial Discovery Pilot Program

On June 1, 2017, the Mandatory Initial Discovery Pilot Project (MIDP) took effect in the Northern District of Illinois. With only limited exceptions, the MIDP applies to all cases filed after June 1 and significantly impacts how cases in the Northern District of Illinois will proceed. In particular, cases in which defendants are seeking to … Continue Reading

Developments in Recent NY Medical Monitoring Claims

As readers of this blog know, we have been closely following developments regarding claims for medical monitoring.  (Medical Monitoring Claims in Illinois, Part 1; Medical Monitoring Claims in Illinois, Part 2.) A recent decision arising out of Hoosick Falls, New York, allowed Plaintiffs’ request for a medical monitoring fund to survive defendants’ motion to dismiss. On … Continue Reading

Medical Monitoring Claims in Illinois, Part 2

In our last post, we discussed Illinois Appellate Court decisions concerning medical monitoring claims. Plaintiffs have been similarly unsuccessful at the trial court level. Judge Leroy Martin in the Circuit Court of Cook County (Chancery) dismissed a medical monitoring claim pursuant to defendants’ 735 ILCS 5/2-615 motion to dismiss. See Pierscionek v. Ill. High Sch. … Continue Reading

D.C. Circuit Limits the FCC’s Rulemaking Authority Under the TCPA … and the FCC Chairman Agrees

On March 31, 2017, the D.C. Circuit held that the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) lacked authority under the Telephone Consumer Protection Act, as amended by the Junk Fax Prevention Act (collectively, the TCPA), to issue a rule, known as the “Solicited Fax Rule,” requiring businesses to include opt-out notices on solicited fax advertisements. Bais Yaakov … Continue Reading

Medical Monitoring Claims in Illinois, Part 1

Medical monitoring has yet to gain traction in Illinois. Plaintiffs with medical monitoring only claims – seeking future testing to determine whether defendants’ alleged negligence has caused the injuries feared  –  have been unsuccessful in Illinois. Although the Illinois Supreme Court has not ruled specifically on medical monitoring, existing Illinois law does not allow for … Continue Reading

Will Ninth Circuit Class Actions Force Resolution of Ascertainability Circuit Split?

“Ascertainability” in the context of civil litigation involves the identification of individuals who qualify for membership in a putative class action. Although not an explicit requirement under Rule 23, since the US Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit refused to certify a class due to difficulties in objectively and efficiently identifying class members in … Continue Reading

Demmler v. ACH Food Companies, Inc.: Mooting Consumer Class Actions in Response to Pre-Suit Demand Letters

We previously blogged about Campbell-Ewald Co. v. Gomez, 136 S. Ct. 663 (2016), in which the Supreme Court held that an unaccepted Rule 68 offer of judgment does not moot a class plaintiff’s claims and, in turn, a class action.  But the Court postulated that actual satisfaction of a class plaintiff’s claims – such as … Continue Reading

Glyphosate Litigation Primer

Introduction Plaintiffs’ lawyers in several states are investigating cases of non-Hodgkin lymphoma and other forms of cancer in individuals exposed to the widely used herbicide glyphosate. These investigations follow on the heels of a 2015 report by a working group at the International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC), which concludes that glyphosate is probably … Continue Reading

Pass-On Defense Still Alive and Well

A California federal court recently relied on the so-called “pass-on defense” to deny class certification in a lawsuit asserting claims under California’s Unfair Competition Law (UCL).  Elite Logistics Corp. v. MOL Am., Inc., No. CV1102952DDPPLAX, 2016 WL 409650, at *3 (C.D. Cal. Feb. 2, 2016). Consumer products companies will want to take note of this … Continue Reading

Campbell-Ewald v. Gomez: Unaccepted Offers of Judgment Do Not ‘Moot’ a Claim, But Ruling Leaves Door Open For Offers Accompanied by Tender

Last week, the Supreme Court issued its much anticipated decision in Campbell-Ewald Co. v. Gomez, 577 U.S. ___ (2016). In a 6-3 opinion, Justice Ginsburg, writing for the majority, held that an unaccepted Rule 68 offer of judgment does not “moot” a claim because “[u]nder basic principles of contract law,” an offer without acceptance is a … Continue Reading
LexBlog