2018 Antitrust Annual Report: Class Action Filings in Federal Court

2019 ◽  
Author(s):  
Josh Paul Davis ◽  
Rose Kohles
Keyword(s):  
Annual Report ◽  
Federal Court ◽  
Class Action

The Class Action as an Antitrust Enforcement Device: The Chicago Experience (I)

1976 ◽  
Vol 1 (3) ◽  
pp. 1021-1106 ◽  
Author(s):  
Benjamin S. DuVal
Keyword(s):  
Empirical Studies ◽  
Federal Court ◽  
Class Action ◽  
Judicial System ◽  
Antitrust Enforcement ◽  
Class Actions ◽  
The Common ◽  
Corporate Wrongdoing

The common question class action has been a source of division and controversy in the legal community. Hailed by its proponents as both a means for small claimants to obtain redress and a deterrent to corporate wrongdoing, the class action has been attacked by others as tantamount to “legalized blackmail” and as threatening to swamp the already overburdened judicial system with proceedings of extraordinary complexity. Two empirical studies of the class action have also reached diametrically opposed conclusions. A study by the American College of Trial Lawyers found that the common question class action suit “has mandated heavy expenditures of judicial time, effort and expense” and has sacrificed “procedural and substantive fairness to the party opposing the class,” while a study commissioned by the Senate Commerce Committee found that most class actions “proceed with reasonable smoothness in the Federal court.” Proposals to restrict the use of class actions have been advanced. While these proposals have not been adopted, the courts have increasingly limited the circumstances under which class actions may be maintained.

Frederick L.: A Review of the Litigation in Context

1986 ◽  
Vol 52 (4) ◽  
pp. 367-375
Author(s):  
Win L. Tillery ◽  
Joseph C. Carfioli
Keyword(s):  
Special Education ◽  
Vocational Training ◽  
Learning Disabled ◽  
Federal Court ◽  
Federal Courts ◽  
Class Action ◽  
School Entry ◽  
Equal Access ◽  
Disabled Students ◽  
Grade 5

Frederick L. was identified as a learning disabled person in need of special education. Because the school district did not operate appropriate programs for students at or above grade 5, he was deprived of a program to meet his needs. The parents initiated a class action suit in the federal courts seeking an appropriate remedy. Throughout the course of litigation, the federal court has served a key role as mediator in effecting sweeping changes in programs for learning disabled students. These changes have provided for special education of the learning disabled from school entry to age 21 and include provisions for equal access to vocational training for exceptional persons.

scholarly journals Clarifying the Scope of Texas’s Cross-Jurisdictional Tolling Rule

2018 ◽  
Vol 4 (3) ◽  
pp. 255-271
Author(s):  
Andrew W. Bell
Keyword(s):  
Case Law ◽  
Federal Court ◽  
Federal Courts ◽  
Class Action ◽  
History Of

This Comment seeks to clarify the scope of cross-jurisdictional tolling in Texas. Although both Texas and federal courts interpreting Texas law have addressed this issue, no Texas court has specifically addressed whether putative members of a class action lawsuit—which was filed in a federal court located in Texas and that asserts Texas property-related claims—can rely on the class action lawsuit to toll the statute of limitations applicable to their claims. Part I of this Comment provides a brief history of the class action tolling doctrine, specifically describing American Pipe and its progeny. Part II discusses recent Texas case law decisions on the American Pipe doctrine and their applicability when cross-jurisdictional tolling is involved. Part III briefly discusses the policy concerns behind cross-jurisdictional tolling. Part IV recommends that Texas should adopt cross-jurisdictional tolling in property-related cases, especially when the class action lawsuit is filed in a federal court located in Texas. Finally, Part V summarizes the points discussed in this Comment.

scholarly journals When Pragmatism Leads to Unintended Consequences: A Critique of Australia’s Unique Closed Class Regime

2018 ◽  
Vol 19 (1) ◽  
pp. 303-332
Author(s):  
Vicki Waye ◽  
Vince Morabito
Keyword(s):  
Ethical Dilemmas ◽  
Critical Mass ◽  
Federal Court ◽  
Unintended Consequences ◽  
Class Action ◽  
Law Firms ◽  
Access To Justice ◽  
Res Judicata ◽  
Closed Class ◽  
Opt Out

Abstract In an effort to ensure access to justice, Australian courts have fashioned a unique hybrid opt in-opt out process known as “closed classes.” The rationale that underlies closed classes is to prevent free-riding that may undercut the position of funders and class action law firms reliant upon entering into agreements with a critical mass of class members. However, multiple closed classes also pose problems for respondents seeking the comfort of finality. To secure settlement and thus ultimately benefit participating class members, Australian courts have formulated a procedure whereby the closed class is opened and nonparticipating class members are invited to either register their claims or opt out so that thereafter those who do not register and those who opt out are effectively precluded by res judicata from making further related claims. We argue that Australian courts’ support of closed classes, while driven by pragmatism, has produced unintended consequences. Many relate to the ethical dilemmas faced by class action law firms and litigation funders seeking to advance the interests of participating class members over and above those of nonparticipating class members. The Full Federal Court has recently approved an alternative common fund approach. However, questions remain as to whether Australian courts are appropriately equipped to measure and compare the alternative transaction costs associated with the current and proposed approach, and whether they are appropriately equipped to determine the commercial rectitude and fairness of litigation funding agreements.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document