Winder Laboratories and Steven Pressman were insured by Continental Casualty Company and Valley Forge Insurance Company when Winder and Pressman were sued by Concordia Pharmaceuticals Inc. for allegedly “falsely or misleadingly advertis[ing] their [products] . . . as generic equivalents to Concordia’s product.” The insureds sought coverage under the insurers’ policies, both of which included…
No Special Tolling for Plaintiff Who Brings an Untimely FLSA Action After Previous Timely Action Is Dismissed
The Fair Labor Standards Act’s statute of limitations is not tolled when a plaintiff files an FLSA action that is later dismissed and then files a new, untimely, action. This was the court’s holding in Wright v. Waste Pro USA, Inc., 696 F.4th 1332 (June 13, 2023), which also rejected the plaintiff’s request for equitable…
Individualized Issues May Predominate Standing Inquiry in Data-Breach Class Action
As data-breach class actions have become increasingly frequent in recent years, courts continue to grapple with whether, and to what extent, these cases meet the requirements for certification of a damages class under Rule 23(b)(3). In its latest such case, Green-Cooper v. Brinker Int’l, Inc., No. 21-13146, 73 F. 4th 883 (July 11, 2023), the…
Failure of Loss Causation Does Not Negate Standing in § 10(b) Securities Fraud Action
The Eleventh Circuit recently held that Article III standing is not negated by a failure to state a claim on loss causation grounds. Carpenters Pension Fund of Ill. v. MiMedx Grp., Inc., 73 F.4th 1220 (11th Cir. 2023). Carpenters, the lead plaintiff in this consolidated securities class action, purchased and sold stock in MiMedx, a…
Class Certification in Consumer-Fraud Case Depends on What Evidence—if Any—Is Required to Establish Reliance Under State Law
The Eleventh Circuit reversed and remanded class certification of most claims brought by a group of consumers who alleged their Ford Mustang Shelby GT350s were not “track ready” as advertised. The court’s decision in Tershakovec v. Ford Motor Company, No. 22-10575, — F.4th —, 2023 WL 4377585 (11th Cir. July 7, 2023), focused on the…
Rule 41(a) May Only Dismiss an Entire Action, Not a Single Count
Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(a) outlines the procedure for voluntary dismissals of “an action” at the parties’ request. The Eleventh Circuit, in an opinion written by Judge Britt Grant, has again emphasized that “[a]ny attempt to use this rule to dismiss a single claim, or anything less than the entire action will be invalid.”…
Plaintiff Has Standing to Assert Agency-Based TILA Claim Against Home-Improvement Financing Company
A plaintiff had Article III standing to bring a Truth in Lending Act (“TILA”) claim against a home improvement financer, based on a theory that a heating and air conditioning contractor company acted as agent for the financer. Walters v. Fast AC, Ltd. Liab. Co., 60 F.4th 642 (11th Cir. 2023) Gary Walters, a 70-year-old…
Single Unwanted Text Enough For TCPA Standing
In an unusual showing of unanimity, the full Eleventh Circuit held that a single unwanted text is enough to confer Article III standing to assert a claim under the Telephone Consumer Protection Act. Drazen v. Pinto, 2023 WL 4699939 (July 24, 2023). The original panel opinion, vacated by the grant of rehearing en banc, arose…
Divided Panel Holds that Insurer’s Total-Loss Settlement Complied with Florida Law
After Gina Signor’s Lexus was damaged in an accident Safeco declared the vehicle a total loss under her automobile insurance policy. Under the policy, Signor was due the “actual cash value,” or “ACV,” of the vehicle. To determine the ACV, Safeco used the Certified Collateral Corporation ONE Market Valuation System, also known as the “CCC…
Equitable Tolling May Apply to Deadline for Motion to Vacate Arbitration Award
NuVasive, a manufacturer of medical products, had an exclusive distribution agreement, including noncompetition provisions, with Absolute Medical, LLC. After Absolute Medical disclaimed that agreement and started using the same salespeople to work for NuVasive’s competitor, NuVasive sued. The district court ordered arbitration of one of NuVasive’s claims—for breach-of-contract damages—and stayed most of the other claims….