(United States Third Circuit) - Reversed the certification of a class in a lawsuit alleging that a restaurant chain violated the Americans with Disabilities Act because its parking lots were difficult to ambulate in a wheelchair. The 500-location restaurant chain contended that the plaintiffs had failed to satisfy some of the requirements for class certification under Fed. R. Civ. P. 23(a). Agreeing, the Third Circuit reversed and remanded to the district court to reconsider if a class should be certified.

(United States Ninth Circuit) - Affirmed the dismissal, on res judicata grounds, of a proposed wage-and-hour class action. While the plaintiff conceded that she was subject to a state class-action settlement that released all claims arising from the same set of allegations upon which her Fair Labor Standards Act lawsuit was based, she nonetheless contended that her FLSA action should be allowed to proceed. Agreeing with the trial court, the Ninth Circuit held that res judicata applied.

(United States Ninth Circuit) - Held that the district court erred in remanding a class action to state court under the Class Action Fairness Act's local-controversy exception. The plaintiff argued that her wage-hour class action against a fast-food chain belonged in state court because more than two-thirds of the putative class members were California citizens. Unconvinced, the Ninth Circuit reversed and remanded for additional discovery regarding how many former employees had moved to other states, among other things.

(California Court of Appeal) - Affirmed the denial of class certification in an action alleging wage and hour violations, finding substantial evidence that individual questions would predominate and also that the named plaintiff was not an adequate class representative.

(United States Ninth Circuit) - Vacated an award of attorney fees but otherwise affirmed the district court's approval of a class action settlement resolving claims that an online retailer enrolled consumers in a membership rewards program without their consent and mishandled their billing information. Held that the district court should not have counted the full face value of $20 coupons provided to class members when it performed the percentage-of-recovery and lodestar calculations.

(United States Second Circuit) - Revived a proposed class action alleging that a company violated the Telephone Consumer Protection Act by sending doctors unsolicited fax advertisements. The company attempted to moot the case by paying the named plaintiff's claim in full. Vacated a dismissal and remanded for further proceedings.

(California Court of Appeal) - Held that employees who filed a proposed wage-hour class action were not entitled to intervene in an earlier, similar action that was being settled. Affirmed the denial of both mandatory and permissive intervention.

(United States Ninth Circuit) - Held that a proposed class action lawsuit challenging the Golden Gate Bridge toll-collecting system belonged in state court. Affirmed the remand of the case to state court after it was removed under the Class Action Fairness Act. The suit principally alleged unlawful collection of personal data.

(United States Seventh Circuit) - Held that the district court did not adequately explain its reason for rescinding certification of a class in a business dispute between numerous used-car dealerships and a financing company. Vacated the class certification ruling and remanded for further proceedings.

(California Court of Appeal) - Held that the trial court erred in denying class certification to truck drivers bringing wage and hour claims against their employer. Reversed and remanded for further proceedings, explaining that errors were made in analyzing whether predominantly common issues existed.

(California Court of Appeal) - Held that the trial court erred in dismissing a proposed wage-hour class action on statute of limitations grounds. The issue involved the so-called death knell doctrine. Reversed a dismissal in relevant part, in an opinion after transfer from the California Supreme Court.

(California Court of Appeal) - Held that a debt collector could cure its failure to use a minimum type-size in consumer collection letters. However, this did not justify the dismissal of the entire class action complaint here. Reversed and remanded.

(United States Supreme Court) - On a question of civil procedure, held that a third-party counterclaim defendant -- that is, a party brought into a lawsuit through a counterclaim filed by the original defendant -- may not remove a class-action counterclaim from state court to federal court. Justice Thomas, joined by the four liberal justices, delivered the opinion of a 5-4 Court in this debt collection lawsuit.

(United States Ninth Circuit) - Held that an engineering company could not proceed with a class action lawsuit alleging that its former concrete supplier unlawfully recorded cellular phone users' calls without their consent. Affirmed an order decertifying the class on the ground that the class representative lacked individual standing.

(United States Ninth Circuit) - Affirmed. The district court's refusal to compel arbitration was upheld, as was their refusal of several motions by Rent-A-Center attempting to avoid class action against them because a contract to waive the right to seek public injunctive relief violates California law.

(United States DC Circuit) - Reversed and Remanded. The district court improperly dismissed a lawsuit in which a woman's credit card number and expiration date were printed on a receipt for lack of standing. The risk of identity theft was sufficient injury to support standing.

(United States Ninth Circuit) - Reversed and remanded. The panel held that the defendants’ jurisdictional allegations, which provided a short and plain statement of the parties’ citizenship based on information and belief, satisfied the defendants’ burden of pleading minimal diversity pursuant to the Class Action Fairness Act.

(United States Seventh Circuit) - Reversed. The court reversed the dismissal of a class action consumer fraud and deceptive business case involving cat food labeled prescription cat food that was not materially different from regular cat food. The fraud claim was sufficiently pled and the Food, Drug and Cosmetic Act's safe harbor didn't apply.

(Supreme Court of California) - Interpreting the state's anti-SLAPP statute, the California Supreme Court addressed whether the commercial nature of a defendant's speech is relevant in determining whether that speech merits protection. Reversing, the high court concluded that the anti-SLAPP statute was inapplicable here to a dispute between two companies over what one said about the other's business practices.

(Supreme Court of California) - Affirmed in part and reversed in part. Plaintiff filed suit for employment discrimination, retaliation and defamation. Defendant filed an anti—SLAPP motion, Code of Civil Procedure section 425.16. The Supreme court held that the anti-SLAPP statute is applicable to the claims of discrimination and retaliation, but not to the defamation cause of action because it was not made in connection with any issue of public significance.

(Supreme Court of California) - The issue is whether or not California’s Unruh Civil Rights Act can be used to bring a claim against a business when the Plaintiff visits the business’s website with the intention of using its services only to be allegedly denied full and equal access to its services and then Plaintiff leaves without entering into an agreement with the service provider. The Court answered in the affirmative.

(United States Second Circuit) - Held that an arbitration clause in an online consumer contract was unenforceable because the consumer did not have reasonable notice of and manifest his assent to it. The consumer was suing a company that sells protection plans for consumer products. Affirmed the denial of the company's motion to compel arbitration.

(United States Seventh Circuit) - Affirmed a judgment after trial in a contractual dispute between two industrial supply companies. The case involved the alleged breach of their asset purchase agreement.

(United States Seventh Circuit) - Held that a manufacturer breached its contractual agreement with a distributor in the medical-supply industry. Affirmed a bench trial judgment, in a case involving distribution rights to a special type of hospital bed.

(United States Fifth Circuit) - In a contractual dispute between two companies in the oil-drilling business, vacated a bench trial judgment, in part. The contract related to exploratory drilling for offshore oil.

(United States Fifth Circuit) - In a contractual dispute over ownership of a trademark in a restaurant name, affirmed a bench trial decision in part and reversed it in part.

(United States Second Circuit) - Held that a medical device manufacturer did not violate the intellectual property rights of a company it hired to help automate its quality testing process. The issue involved reuse of computer source code. Affirmed a JMOL.

(United States Ninth Circuit) - Held that a dispute between a city and an engineering firm belonged in state court rather than federal court. Affirmed a remand order based on language in the parties' venue selection agreement.

(United States Seventh Circuit) - Held that a yacht buyer may not proceed with a contract and warranty lawsuit against a yacht manufacturer. Affirmed a judgment after a bench trial, in a dispute involving the exhaust system's compliance with European Union regulatory requirements.

(United States Seventh Circuit) - Affirmed. The district court dismissed a case involving an exclusive sale agreement for failure to state a claim because the contract was not in force at the time of the alleged breach and the district court did not misinterpret the contract's automatic renewal clause.

(United States Ninth Circuit) - Affirmed. The district court's refusal to compel arbitration was upheld, as was their refusal of several motions by Rent-A-Center attempting to avoid class action against them because a contract to waive the right to seek public injunctive relief violates California law.

(United States Seventh Circuit) - Affirmed, reversed, and remanded in part. Largely affirming the dismissal of claims alleging a conspiracy between a city and alarm companies, but reversing the dismissal of a contracts clause claim against the city.

(United States DC Circuit) - Affirmed. The FCC's decision to cancel a cellular phone company's radio spectrum licenses because the company failed to make the installment payment for those licenses was appropriate.

(United States Fifth Circuit) - Affirmed. The jury award of more than $43 mil. for the breach of a Joint Operating Agreement relating to the plugging and abandonment operation of offshore oil and gas wells in the Gulf of Mexico was affirmed because the application of Louisiana Civil Code and interpretation of the contract was appropriate. No bad faith offset entitlement was found.

(United States Fifth Circuit) - Remanded. The court joined sister circuits in holding that class arbitration is a "gateway" issue that must be decided by the courts rather than by arbitrators.

(United States Ninth Circuit) - Reversed the district court’s dismissal of an action based on the forum selection clause in the parties’ contract. Held that the district court abused its discretion in overriding the strong public policy in Idaho Code section 29-110(1).

(United States Fifth Circuit) - Affirmed. A subcontractor did not owe a duty to indemnify a company for its expenditures in labor and materials in a construction project.

(United States Second Circuit) - Vacated and remanded. Finding the promise to arbitrate in the franchise application was supported by adequate consideration, the panel vacates the district court’s denial of DAI’s motion to compel arbitration and remands for further proceedings.

(United States Fifth Circuit) - Affirmed. On remand from the Supreme Court the panel determined that the parties to an arbitration clause did not clearly and unmistakably delegate the question of arbitrability to an arbitrator and that the district court had the power to make this determination.

(United States Seventh Circuit) - Vacated and remanded. The summary judgment in a contract lawsuit over a supply contract for manufactured goods was improper because there were genuine issues of material fact.

(United States Fifth Circuit) - Partially vacated, otherwise affirmed, and remanded. The dismissal of breach of contract claims were vacated, but judgments dismissing civil conspiracy claims and refusal to submit punitive damages claims to a jury were affirmed in a case involving disputes over discounts to charges for physical therapy patients covered by workers' compensation insurance.

(United States Second Circuit) - Revived a proposed class action alleging that a company violated the Telephone Consumer Protection Act by sending doctors unsolicited fax advertisements. The company attempted to moot the case by paying the named plaintiff's claim in full. Vacated a dismissal and remanded for further proceedings.

(United States Seventh Circuit) - Affirmed the dismissal of a consumer's proposed class action, which alleged that a debt-collection letter violated the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act. The letter allegedly stated that important information was on the back of its first page, but the information was on the front of its second page.

(California Court of Appeal) - Held that the trial court awarded too little in attorney fees to a vehicle purchaser who had prevailed on a lemon law claim. The fees should not have been limited to a percentage of her modest damages award. Reversed and remanded for a determination of a reasonable fee award.

(United States Ninth Circuit) - Revived a consumer's claim that certain nutritional supplements were falsely labeled as capable of improving cognitive functions when in fact they provided no such benefits. Reversed the entry of summary judgment, allowing class claims under California law to proceed.

(United States Second Circuit) - Held that an arbitration clause in an online consumer contract was unenforceable because the consumer did not have reasonable notice of and manifest his assent to it. The consumer was suing a company that sells protection plans for consumer products. Affirmed the denial of the company's motion to compel arbitration.

(United States Ninth Circuit) - Held that makers of vitamin E supplements did not violate California laws against false advertising. A consumer alleged that the product labels made untrue health claims. Affirmed summary judgment against a proposed class action.

(United States Second Circuit) - Held that thirteen collection agencies violated federal law in collecting payday loan and other debts. Affirmed summary judgment in favor of the Federal Trade Commission in this civil enforcement action against the collection agencies and their co-owners.

(United States Ninth Circuit) - Revived a consumer's claim that a nonprofit corporation involved in student loans was vicariously liable for violation of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act, because it had ratified student loan debt collectors' illegal calling practices. Reversed a summary judgment ruling.

(California Court of Appeal) - Revived an automobile lessee's lawsuit against a car dealership. Held that the dealership did not make a timely and appropriate offer to correct the alleged issue, for purposes of California's Consumer Legal Remedies Act. Reversed a summary judgment ruling.