Mulling Modifications

A North Carolina Superior Court denied class certification in an antitrust case involving indirect purchasers who alleged a hospital network's anticompetitive conduct inflated their health insurance premiums. The court found plaintiffs failed to demonstrate class-wide impact through common proof, particularly rejecting their expert's pass-through theory as insufficiently rigorous and excluding key portions of the expert report.

A federal court in California denied preliminary approval of a $2.3 million data breach settlement affecting over 220,000 individuals, finding seven critical deficiencies in the proposed agreement. The decision highlights the rigorous scrutiny courts apply to class action settlements, particularly regarding claims-made distribution processes, inadequate documentation of settlement value, and unexplained disparate treatment among class members.

A federal court granted Disney's motion to compel arbitration in an antitrust class action, allowing the company to invoke fuboTV's subscriber terms of service after acquiring a 70% stake in the streaming platform. The ruling demonstrates how corporate mergers can fundamentally alter litigation strategy by enabling non-signatories to enforce arbitration agreements containing "future affiliates" provisions.

Under Washington State law, failing to act in a timely manner at any stage of a lawsuit, from pre-suit initiation through active litigation to post-judgment proceedings, can carry severe procedural and substantive consequences. These consequences range from the absolute bar of a claim or defense to monetary sanctions, evidentiary exclusions, dismissal of the action, and the loss of the right to appeal or collect on a judgment.

The Washington Court of Appeals affirmed a trial court's denial of an employer's motion to compel arbitration in a wage and hour class action, finding the arbitration agreement procedurally unconscionable. The ruling examines how employers present arbitration agreements to employees and whether workers receive meaningful opportunity to understand terms before signing, with significant implications for class action litigation strategy.

The Mortgage Bankers Association has filed a federal lawsuit challenging New Jersey's disparate impact discrimination rules, arguing they lack constitutional safeguards and conflict with federal law. The complaint asserts the rules impose unrecoverable compliance costs on lenders and create operational burdens by requiring different policies across states.

Article I, section 10 of the Washington State Constitution guarantees Washington residents access to the courts. That right does not mean that a person has unlimited access.

DigiNovations, Inc. brought a nine-count complaint in Massachusetts Superior Court against its former executive vice president, Wales, former employee Mackos, and the competing company they founded...

A California federal court ruled that plaintiffs cannot avoid arbitration simply by labeling their claims as "sexual harassment." The decision requires plaintiffs to plausibly allege conduct that actually constitutes sexual harassment under governing law before the Ending Forced Arbitration of Sexual Assault and Sexual Harassment Act applies. This ruling establishes important limits on attempts to circumvent arbitration agreements through strategic claim labeling.

A federal magistrate judge blocked an employer from distributing a dispute resolution agreement with a class action waiver to settlement class members between preliminary and final approval stages. The court found that despite the agreement's non-coercive language, the timing created unacceptable risks of confusion that could interfere with class members' settlement rights.