Share on LinkedInShare on LinkedIn

ARTICLE · 10 FEBRUARY 2017

A Look At Potential Supreme Court Nominees' Class Action Decisions

BakerHostetler
BakerHostetler
Contributor
BakerHostetler

BakerHostetler

Recognized as an innovator and one of the top firms for client service, BakerHostetler helps...

View firm profile
Explore more from BakerHostetler

Judge Pryor identified at least two reasons why the district court abused its discretion in finding Rule 23(b)(3)'s predominance requirement satisfied.

United StatesLitigation, Mediation & Arbitration

Tonight, President Donald Trump is expected to nominate one of three federal appellate judges to the Supreme Court: Judge William Pryor of the Eleventh Circuit, Judge Neil Gorsuch of the Tenth Circuit or Judge Thomas Hardiman of the Third Circuit. While their class action experience varies, all three judges have recently sided with class action defendants on frequently litigated issues: Pryor on predominance, Gorsuch on CAFA removal and Hardiman on ascertainability.

Judge Pryor on predominance in Brown v. Electrolux (11th Cir. 2016)

Writing for a unanimous Eleventh Circuit, Judge Pryor recently vacated a district court order certifying two statewide classes of consumers who complained of "smelly washing machines" allegedly caused by a "rubber seal on the front door [that] retains water, which allows mildew to grow." Brown v. Electrolux Home Prods., 817 F.3d 1225, 1230 (11th Cir. 2016). Judge Pryor identified at least two reasons why the district court abused its

We operate a free-to-view policy, asking only that you register in order to read all of our content. Please login or register to view the rest of this article.

See more popular content from