By design, the Class Action Fairness Act (CAFA) allows defendants to remove complex class actions to federal court. It avoids the onerous diversity requirements that defendants previously struggled to satisfy, and its $5 million amount-in-controversy threshold is often easy to meet in large class actions. In response, plaintiffs have often thrown up roadblocks to removal
The contours of plaintiff pleading requirements for ERISA fiduciary breach claims sketched by the Supreme Court in Hughes v. Northwestern University continue to evolve. Recent cases suggest that plaintiffs may find ERISA class action lawsuits increasingly vulnerable to motions to dismiss unless they allege context specific defects in the processes followed by defined contribution plan
In Estrada v. Royalty Carpet Mills, Inc., 76 Cal. App. 5th 685 (2022), the California Court of Appeal, in relevant part, reversed a trial court’s order decertifying a subclass and dismissing related Private Attorneys General Act (PAGA) claims as unmanageable. In doing so, the court held “a court cannot strike a PAGA claim based
The Class Action Fairness Act (CAFA) offers a broader avenue for removal of a case to federal court than traditional diversity jurisdiction. Counsel for plaintiffs and defendants alike have developed unique strategies to either destroy or maintain federal jurisdiction, depending on their objectives. This GT Advisory explores advanced removal strategies that have arisen in complex
In a much-anticipated decision, the Illinois Appellate Court for the First District has ruled that two separate statutes of limitations apply to violations of the Illinois Biometric Information Privacy Act (“BIPA” or the “Act”). Specifically, the court in Tims v. Black Horse Carriers, Inc., 2021 IL App (1st) 200563 (Sept. 17, 2021), held that
By now, most California employers have heard of AB 5, which, along with the California Supreme Court decision, Dynamex Operations W. Inc. v. Superior Court, 4 Cal. 5th 903 (2018), has significantly affected the way many companies do business in California. While AB 5 was disruptive, it was also short-lived.
Read the full GT
On Sept. 8, 2020, a New York federal judge struck down substantial portions of the U.S. Department of Labor (DOL’s) joint employer final rule, which went into effect March 1, 2020. As reported in a prior GT L&E blog, the DOL’s final rule announced a four-factor balancing test for determining joint-employer status when one
Prompted by telework arrangements that arose in response to the Coronavirus Disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic, the U.S. Department of Labor’s Wage and Hour Division (DOL) issued a Bulletin addressing important work-from-home wage-and-hour considerations. The DOL’s Bulletin presents useful guidance for employers grappling with the challenges of managing working time and pay of employees forced into
In August 2020, the California Court of Appeal issued two wins for California employers facing multiple simultaneous representative actions under the Labor Code Private Attorneys General Act of 2004 (PAGA) (Lab. Code § 2698 et seq.) in Robinson v. Southern Counties Oil Company and Starks v. Vortex Industries, Inc.
Read the full GT Alert, “
Mark D. Kemple, co-chair of global law firm Greenberg Traurig, LLP’s Labor & Employment Class and Collective Action Practice and leader of the Southern California Labor & Employment Practice, has been named a 2019 Employment Law Trailblazer by the National Law Journal.
The Employment Law Trailblazer award recognizes legal professionals who “make