Civil Procedure

A group of employment and civil procedure scholars in a case presenting the question whether a lawsuit brought as a collective action under Section 216(b) of the Fair Labor Standards Act becomes moot when the lone plaintiff receives an offer from the defendants to satisfy all of the plaintiff’s individual damage claims. Genesis HealthCare Corp. v. Symczyk, No. 11-1059 (U.S. Supreme Court).

A putative class of consumers in a case presenting the question whether, after Smith v. Bayer Corp., 131 S. Ct. 2368 (2011), when a named plaintiff attempts to defeat a defendant’s right of removal under the Class Action Fairness Act of 2005 by filing with a class action complaint a “stipulation” that attempts to limit the damages he “seeks” for the absent putative class members to less than the $5 million threshold for federal jurisdiction, and the defendant establishes that the actual amount in controversy, absent the “stipulation,” exceeds $5 million, the “stipulation” is binding on absent class members so as to destroy federal jurisdiction. The Standard Fire Insurance Co. v. Knowles, No. 11-1450 (U.S. Supreme Court).

A Fortune 50 financial services client analyzing the scope an arbitrator’s subpoena power.

A group of motor fuel retailers in an multi-district litigation proceeding involving a series of class actions alleging that the sale of motor fuel without compensating for weather-related changes in volume and temperature was fraudulent. In re Motor Fuel Temperature Sales Practices Litig., MDL No. 1840, Civ. No. 07-MDL-1840-KHV (D. Kan.).

AWG Group Ltd. of Great Britain in a case involving international arbitration agreements and the question whether, in disputes involving a multi-stage dispute resolution process, a court or instead the arbitrator determines if a precondition to arbitration has been satisfied. BG Group PLC v. Republic of Argentina, No. 12-138 (U.S. Supreme Court).

A financial services company in pursuing an interlocutory appeal on a question of statutory construction in defense of a class action alleging violation of the Homeowners Protection Act.

A group of amici scholars in a case presenting the question whether, in the absence of any claim that an alleged violation of the Real Estate Settlement Procedures Act of 1974 affected the price, quality, or other characteristics of the settlement services provided, a private purchaser of real estate settlement services has standing to sue under Article III. First American Financial Corp. v. Edwards, No. 10-708 (U.S. Supreme Court).

Semtek International in a case presenting the question of whether the law of the forum state controls the preclusive effect of a federal diversity judgment. Semtek Intern. Inc. v. Lockheed Martin Corp., 531 U.S. 497 (2001). See 2000 WL 1706725, 2000 WL 1239810 (briefs) (U.S. Supreme Court).

JPMorgan Chase and other banks in a major class action settlement regarding allegedly anti-competitive interchange fees charged by banks belonging to the Visa and MasterCard networks, regarding the binding nature of class action settlements under both Fed. R. Civ. P. 23(b)(2) & (3) after Wal-Mart Stores, Inc. v. Dukes, 564 U.S. ___, 131 S. Ct. 2541 (2011).

A brief in opposition to a cert petition seeking Supreme Court review of the constitutionality of 28 U.S.C. § 636(c)(1) (Magistrate’s Act).  Braverman v. Dewey, 135 S. Ct. 231 (2014) (denying cert.).  See 2014 WL 4145284 (brief).

Bank One (later acquired by J.P. Morgan Chase) in a case presenting the question whether a national bank is “located” in, and thus a citizen of, for diversity purposes, the state of its principal place of business and the state listed in its organization certificate. Horton v. Bank One, N.A., 387 F.3d 426 (5th Cir. 2004).

SSA Gulf, a leading cargo handling company, in cases presenting questions of federal court jurisdiction and “complete” federal preemption. SSA Gulf, Inc. v. Magee, 544 U.S. 904 (2005); SSA Gulf v. U.S. District Court, 543 U.S. 987 (2004). See 2005 WL 389087, 2004 WL 2751157 (briefs) (U.S. Supreme Court).

Peabody Coal in a case presenting the question whether federal question subject-matter jurisdiction arises pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1331 over an action to enforce a federally approved amendment to a mineral lease between a federally recognized Indian tribe and a private corporation. Peabody Coal Co. v. The Navajo Nation, 543 U.S. 1054 (2005). See2004 WL 2961073, 2004 WL 2569698 (briefs) (U.S. Supreme Court).

Shell Oil in an insurance coverage case involving the scope of indispensable party joinder. Shell Oil Co. v. Aetna Cas. and Sur. Co., 158 F.R.D. 395 (N.D. Ill. 1994).

NL Industries in appeal and cross-appeal concerning the scope of equitable laches. Flacke v. NL Industries, Inc., 228 A.D.2d 888, 644 N.Y.S.2d 404 (N.Y.A.D. 3 Dept. 1996).

A leading New York real estate owner and manager in a federal action arising from the administration of the New York state judiciary. Kaufman v. Kaye, 466 F.3d 83 (2d Cir. 2006), 127 S. Ct. 1828 (2007). See 2007 WL 545654, 2006 WL 3877337 (briefs) (U.S. Supreme Court and U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit).

A Full Faith and Credit case involving the enforceability in federal court of a consent decree entered by a state court enjoining a witness from testifying in the federal action. Baker v. General Motors Corp., 522 U.S. 222 (1998). See 1997 WL 33485584, 1997 WL 471824, 1997 WL 278921, 1996 WL 33414099 (briefs) (U.S. Supreme Court).

A group of amici legal scholars in a case involving the Seventh Amendment limits on judicial review of damages awards. Gasperini v. Center for Humanities, 518 U.S. 415 (1996).See 1996 WL 88776 (brief) (U.S. Supreme Court).

Bank One (later acquired by J.P. Morgan Chase) as trustee on appeal of favorable fraudulent joinder dismissal ruling in tort liability case. May v. Texaco, 73 Fed.Appx. 78 (5th Cir. 2003). See 2002 WL 32362430 (brief) (U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit).

A petition for mandamus involving subject-matter jurisdiction and fraudulent joinder issues regarding some 14,000 actions in the diet drug multi-district litigation. In re Briscoe, 448 F.3d 201 (3d Cir. 2006).

A party to a release in a case involving whether a defendant may assign the right of indemnity or contribution under District of Columbia law. Caglioti v. District Hospital Partners, L.P., 933 A.2d 800 (D.C. 2007). See 2006 WL 5403810 (brief) (District of Columbia Court of Appeals).

A state public employees retirement fund in a case presenting the question whether a federal court may use the supplemental jurisdiction statute in the removal context to prevent a state court from litigating state-law civil claims, where the Younger doctrine would bar the issuance of an injunction to achieve that result. Kansas Public Employees Retirement Sys. v. Reimer & Kroger Assocs., Inc., 519 U.S. 948 (1996). See 1996 WL 33422737 (brief) (U.S. Supreme Court).

A case involving the scope and applicability of the forum non conveniens doctrine. Espinola-E v. Coahoma Chemical Co., 248 F.3d 1138 (5th Cir. 2001), 534 U.S. 820 (2001). See2001 WL 34133755 (brief) (U.S. Supreme Court and U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit).

A telecommunications company in a case involving civil RICO and state-law claims. Straitshot Communications, Inc. v. Telekenex, Inc., 2012 WL 727271, W.D.Wash., March 06, 2012 (NO. C10-268Z); Straitshot Communications, Inc. v. Telekenex, Inc., 2011 WL 6013829, W.D.Wash., December 01, 2011 (NO. C10-268Z); Straitshot Communications, Inc. v. Telekenex, Inc., 2011 WL 2144238, W.D.Wash., May 27, 2011 (NO. C10-268Z); Straightshot Communications, Inc. v. Telekenex, Inc., 2011 WL 1770930, W.D.Wash., May 09, 2011 (NO. C10-268Z); Straightshot Communications, Inc. v. Telekenex, Inc., 2011 WL 1770935, RICO Bus.Disp.Guide 12,046, W.D.Wash., May 09, 2011 (NO. C10-268Z);Straightshot Communications, Inc. v. Telekenex, Inc., 2011 WL 813598, W.D.Wash., March 01, 2011; Straightshot Communications Inc. v. Telekenex, Inc., 2010 WL 4793538, W.D.Wash., November 19, 2010 (NO. C10-268Z).

Product liability claims made by foreign agricultural workers for injuries and damages allegedly caused by exposure to the pesticide dibromo chloropropane (“DBCP”). Chaverri v. Dole Food Co., Inc., --- F.Supp.2d ---, 2012 WL 4097216 (E.D.La., Sept. 17, 2012).