Law.com Subscribers SAVE 30%
Call 855-808-4530 or email [email protected] to receive your discount on a new subscription.
Ascertaining Potential Plaintiffs
Given that Rule 23's implied “ascertainability” requirement is a fundamental tenet of class certification, courts have routinely required plaintiffs to have a “reliable” and “administratively feasible” method to establish ascertainability, one that permits a defendant to challenge the evidence put forth. Up until now, in many courts, before a purported “purchaser” may join a class action targeting a product, the potential class member must make a showing that (s)he actually purchased the product and was potentially damaged by the alleged wrong. The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit's recent decision in Mullins v. Direct Digital LLC, No. 15-1776 (7th Cir. July 28, 2015), however, provides a decisive counterpoint to decisions in the U.S. Courts of Appeals for the Third and Eleventh Circuits. These are developments to watch as the issue in all likelihood winds its way to the United States Supreme Court.
The Third Circuit Approach
We thought the “ascertainability” question regarding the identity of potential class members was answered when the Third Circuit, relying heavily on its decision in Marcus v. BMW of North America, LLC, 687 F.3d 583, 594 (3d Cir. 2012), explained that a plaintiff “must show by a preponderance of the evidence that the class is 'currently and readily ascertainable' based on objective criteria, and the trial court must undertake a rigorous analysis of the evidence to determine if the standard is met.” Carrera v. Bayer Corp., 727 F.3d 300, 306 (3d Cir. 2013). The Third Circuit held that, because plaintiffs put forth no objective criteria and the trial court's analysis was lacking, the order certifying the class was an abuse of discretion. See id.
This premium content is locked for Entertainment Law & Finance subscribers only
ENJOY UNLIMITED ACCESS TO THE SINGLE SOURCE OF OBJECTIVE LEGAL ANALYSIS, PRACTICAL INSIGHTS, AND NEWS IN ENTERTAINMENT LAW.
- Stay current on the latest information, rulings, regulations, and trends
- Includes practical, must-have information on copyrights, royalties, AI, and more
- Tap into expert guidance from top entertainment lawyers and experts
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
Major Differences In UK, U.S. Copyright Laws
This article highlights how copyright law in the United Kingdom differs from U.S. copyright law, and points out differences that may be crucial to entertainment and media businesses familiar with U.S law that are interested in operating in the United Kingdom or under UK law. The article also briefly addresses contrasts in UK and U.S. trademark law.
The Article 8 Opt In
The Article 8 opt-in election adds an additional layer of complexity to the already labyrinthine rules governing perfection of security interests under the UCC. A lender that is unaware of the nuances created by the opt in (may find its security interest vulnerable to being primed by another party that has taken steps to perfect in a superior manner under the circumstances.
Strategy vs. Tactics: Two Sides of a Difficult Coin
With each successive large-scale cyber attack, it is slowly becoming clear that ransomware attacks are targeting the critical infrastructure of the most powerful country on the planet. Understanding the strategy, and tactics of our opponents, as well as the strategy and the tactics we implement as a response are vital to victory.
Legal Possession: What Does It Mean?
Possession of real property is a matter of physical fact. Having the right or legal entitlement to possession is not "possession," possession is "the fact of having or holding property in one's power." That power means having physical dominion and control over the property.
The Anti-Assignment Override Provisions
UCC Sections 9406(d) and 9408(a) are one of the most powerful, yet least understood, sections of the Uniform Commercial Code. On their face, they appear to override anti-assignment provisions in agreements that would limit the grant of a security interest. But do these sections really work?