In the case of In re Allergan ERISA Litig., the 3rd Circuit affirmed the District Court’s dismissal of the case and the denial of the plaintiffs’ request for leave to amend. Even when viewed in the light most favorable to the plaintiffs, the factual allegations failed to support a plausible inference that the defendant conspired with … Read more
In Hargrove v. Sleepy’s, the 3rd Circuit reversed the District Court’s denial of a class certification. The 3rd Circuit held that, where an employer has failed to keep records it was required to keep by law, employees can prove ascertainability by producing sufficient evidence to define their proposed class as a matter of just and … Read more
The Appellate Division in Seigelstein v. Shrewsbury Motors, Inc., reiterated the importance of the “lodestar” principal regarding attorneys fees originally set forth in Rendine v. Pantzer, whereby the starting point in calculating such fees is the number of hours reasonably expended on the litigation multiplied by a reasonable hourly rate.
In the case of In re Suboxone Antitrust Litig., the 3rd Circuit affirmed granting class certification to a group who purchased Suboxone from its manufacturer. The class alleged that the manufacturer engaged in unfair trade practice to drive prescribers away from Suboxone tablets and toward under-the-tongue films in order to drive market share away from … Read more
This class action proceeded to trial and the jury agreed with the plaintiffs that the defendant breached express and implied warranties by selling the plaintiffs cars with defective brake pads. The jury awarded $750 to each plaintiff. The trial court granted the defendant’s post-trial motion regarding damages only. The trial court left the verdict intact … Read more
In this antitrust class action, the plaintiffs, who were purchasers of eggs, claimed the defendant egg producers conspired to inflate prices using three methods to do so. Before the District Court, the plaintiffs argued that all three of those methods were part of a single overarching conspiracy that was anti-competitive per se and therefore unlawful under … Read more
In this securities class action suit, a class of shareholders sued M&T Bank as a result of its intended merger with Hudson Bank. The two banks issued a joint proxy to their shareholders pursuant to the Securities Exchange Act and related regulations in order to apprise their respective shareholders of the risks and rewards of … Read more