Call 855-808-4530 or email [email protected] to receive your discount on a new subscription.
In February, President Bush signed his first piece of “tort reform” legislation, the Class Action Fairness Act (the Act), into law. The Act expands federal diversity jurisdiction to encompass most large class actions, including employment law related class actions. One area of employment litigation that the Act may likely impact is in the wage and hour class action context where, as discussed below, litigants file wage and hour class actions in state court while also pursuing Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA) collective actions in federal court.
What's in the Act
Generally stated, the Act provides a right to remove to federal court any state court class action (or mass action of 100 or more plaintiffs) commenced after the effective date of the Act, Feb. 18, 2005, in which:
A federal court may decline to exercise jurisdiction if between one-third and two-thirds of the potential class members and the primary defendants are citizens of the state where the case was filed. The Act precludes federal courts from exercising jurisdiction where at least two-thirds of the potential class members and at least one of the primary defendants are citizens of the state in which the case was filed. It also puts significant limits on attorney fee awards in cases where the class members receive “coupons” instead of cash payments. The Act further requires that defendants notify the appropriate federal and state authorities prior to court approval of any settlement.
What About the FLSA?
In the FLSA context, the Act may impact the already contentious issue of simultaneous federal and state court class action cases; whereby plaintiffs pursue both an opt-in collective action under the FLSA and an opt-out class action under state law, thus improving their chances of having a larger number of potential class members. These two parallel actions also allow plaintiffs' attorneys to find potential class members in states with favorable state wage laws, resulting in federal claims filed in one state while state-law claims are filed in another. Depending on the composite of the parties, the state law class claims could be removed to federal court under the new Act. This area, however, is likely to remain muddled for some time. While the Act suggests the opportunity to remove class actions to federal court, the impact of the Act in the employment context remains to be seen.
In February, President Bush signed his first piece of “tort reform” legislation, the Class Action Fairness Act (the Act), into law. The Act expands federal diversity jurisdiction to encompass most large class actions, including employment law related class actions. One area of employment litigation that the Act may likely impact is in the wage and hour class action context where, as discussed below, litigants file wage and hour class actions in state court while also pursuing Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA) collective actions in federal court.
What's in the Act
Generally stated, the Act provides a right to remove to federal court any state court class action (or mass action of 100 or more plaintiffs) commenced after the effective date of the Act, Feb. 18, 2005, in which:
A federal court may decline to exercise jurisdiction if between one-third and two-thirds of the potential class members and the primary defendants are citizens of the state where the case was filed. The Act precludes federal courts from exercising jurisdiction where at least two-thirds of the potential class members and at least one of the primary defendants are citizens of the state in which the case was filed. It also puts significant limits on attorney fee awards in cases where the class members receive “coupons” instead of cash payments. The Act further requires that defendants notify the appropriate federal and state authorities prior to court approval of any settlement.
What About the FLSA?
In the FLSA context, the Act may impact the already contentious issue of simultaneous federal and state court class action cases; whereby plaintiffs pursue both an opt-in collective action under the FLSA and an opt-out class action under state law, thus improving their chances of having a larger number of potential class members. These two parallel actions also allow plaintiffs' attorneys to find potential class members in states with favorable state wage laws, resulting in federal claims filed in one state while state-law claims are filed in another. Depending on the composite of the parties, the state law class claims could be removed to federal court under the new Act. This area, however, is likely to remain muddled for some time. While the Act suggests the opportunity to remove class actions to federal court, the impact of the Act in the employment context remains to be seen.
ENJOY UNLIMITED ACCESS TO THE SINGLE SOURCE OF OBJECTIVE LEGAL ANALYSIS, PRACTICAL INSIGHTS, AND NEWS IN ENTERTAINMENT LAW.
Already a have an account? Sign In Now Log In Now
For enterprise-wide or corporate acess, please contact Customer Service at [email protected] or 877-256-2473
What Law Firms Need to Know Before Trusting AI Systems with Confidential Information In a profession where confidentiality is paramount, failing to address AI security concerns could have disastrous consequences. It is vital that law firms and those in related industries ask the right questions about AI security to protect their clients and their reputation.
During the COVID-19 pandemic, some tenants were able to negotiate termination agreements with their landlords. But even though a landlord may agree to terminate a lease to regain control of a defaulting tenant's space without costly and lengthy litigation, typically a defaulting tenant that otherwise has no contractual right to terminate its lease will be in a much weaker bargaining position with respect to the conditions for termination.
The International Trade Commission is empowered to block the importation into the United States of products that infringe U.S. intellectual property rights, In the past, the ITC generally instituted investigations without questioning the importation allegations in the complaint, however in several recent cases, the ITC declined to institute an investigation as to certain proposed respondents due to inadequate pleading of importation.
As the relationship between in-house and outside counsel continues to evolve, lawyers must continue to foster a client-first mindset, offer business-focused solutions, and embrace technology that helps deliver work faster and more efficiently.
Practical strategies to explore doing business with friends and social contacts in a way that respects relationships and maximizes opportunities.