Over the past several years, circuit courts have started to provide more specific guidance on the countours of the "rigorous" analysis required by district courts in deciding whether to certify a class. The Second Circuit's decision in In re Initial Public Offerings Securities Litig., 471 F.3d 24 (2d Cir. 2006) and the Third Circuit's decision in In re Hydrogen Peroxide Antitrust Litig., 552 F.3d 305 (3d Cir. 2008) are probably the most cited cases in this area, although most circuit courts have not specifically addressed this issue.
A few months ago, the Sixth Circuit finally decided to address the issue head on when it granted a Rule 23(f) interlocutory appeal "to clarify the scope and extent of the district court's obligation to resolve disputed factual issues in undertaking a rigorous analysis of the claims asserted as they relate to the class certification requirements" and to address "the question of the standard of proof a potential class representative must meet in demonstrating that the fraud on the market presumption is applicable to the claims asserted." In re Abercombie & Fitch Co., et al., Case No. 09-0310 (Aug. 24, 2009 Order).
The Abercrombie case will set the standard within the Circuit and will be closely watched.
Topics/Tags
Select- Litigation
- Class Action Litigation
- Appellate Law
- Cybersecurity and Privacy Law
- Data Breach
- E-Discovery
- Securities Law
- Coronavirus
- Sixth Circuit
- Supreme Court
- Intellectual Property
- Social Media
- Trademark
- Trademark Litigation
- Initial Coin Offering
- Bet-the-Company Litigation
- E-Discovery Case Law
- Electronic Data Discovery
- Antitrust
- Federal Rules of Civil Procedure
- Employment Law
- ESI
- Workplace Accommodations
- Employer Policies
- Labor & Employment Law
- Labor Law
- Technology
- ERISA
- Stock Drop
- GDPR
- General Data Protection Regulation
- Cryptocurrency
- SEC
- Securities Litigation
- Ascertainability
- Craft Brewing
- Cybersecurity Regulation
- Drug Enforcement Agency
- Medical Marijuana
- Ohio Foreclosure Reform
- Copyright Law
- Environmental Law
- Fair Housing Act
- Health Care Act
- Healthcare Reform
- Pregnancy Discrimination
- Religion Discrimination
- Seventh Circuit
- Accommodation
- Americans with Disabilities Act
- Cyber Insurance
- EEOC
- Electronically Stored Information
- FLSA
- Proportionality
- Telecommuting
- Business Process Improvement
- Employer Handbook
- Employer Rules
- Employment Litigation
- Lenders
- National Labor Relations Act
- National Labor Relations Board
- NLRB
- Receivership Statute
- Unions
- E-Discovery Project Plan
- Evidence
- Predictive Coding
- TAR ( Technology Assisted Review)
- Quality Representation
- Subpoena
- Arbitration
- CAFA
- Land Use & Zoning
- Construction Litigation
- Privacy
- Statute of Limitations
- Taxation
- Federal Rule
Recent Posts
- Agency Deference Loses its Luster Under Ohio Law—Is Interpretation of Administrative Statutes Ohio's Next Legal Hot Topic?
- United States Supreme Court Clarifies Boundaries of Federal Civil Rule 60(b)
- Motion for Reconsideration in an Appeal: Sometimes the Court will Reconsider if you Argue its Initial Decision was Just Wrong
- TransUnion LLC v. Ramirez and the Impact on Class Action Litigation
- Questioning the Questionnaires: New PPP-Related Litigation Raises Issues for Borrowers
- "You Don't Have to Go Home But You Can't Stay Here": Updates to Ohio and Kentucky’s COVID-19 Orders Impacting Bars & Restaurants
- Kentucky Restaurants Begin Opening with Limited Capacity Amid COVID-19 Epidemic
- Ohio Restaurants and Bars Begin Soft Openings for Diners Amid COVID-19 Epidemic
- Supreme Court Sidesteps “Cy Pres” Challenge
- Golfers, New and Old - Be Careful!