- Asbestos
- Class Actions
- Commercial Litigation
- Defective Products
- Drug Injury
- Personal Injury
- Securities Fraud
- Toxic Exposure
- Whistleblower Claims
Current Investigations
General
Drug Injury
- Actos
- Accutane
- Fosamax
- GranuFlo/NaturaLyte
- Gadolinium
- Ocella, Yasmin, Yaz
- Pradaxa
- Sleeping Pills
- SSRIs
- Topamax
- Tylenol
- Zithromax/Z-pack
- Zocor/Simvastatin
Medical Devices
- Da Vinci Robot
- DePuy Hip Recall
- Mirena
- Stryker Recall
- Stryker Lawsuit
- Transvaginal Mesh
- Zimmer Hip Implant
Product Liability
- Aveeno Lawsuit
- Atlas Roofing Lawsuit
- Avon/Clarins Products
- AZEK Decking
- Chinese Drywall
- Chrysler Lock-Ups
- Demilec Insulation
- Electrolux Lawsuit
- Energy Drink Lawsuit
- Flushmate Systems
- Ford 5.4L Engine
- Ford & Mercury Transmissions
- Ford Mileage Claims
- GAF Decking
- Jeld-Wen Low E
- LP/ABTCO TrimBoard
- Norcold Lawsuit
- Pozzi and Jeld-Wen
- Remington Lawsuit
- TimberTech Decking
- Toyota Power Windows
- Trex Decking Lawsuit
Food
Pending Settlements
Archives : 2009 : July
Is Rule 23(f) Appellate Review of Class Certification Rulings Becoming at Long Last a Reality for Plaintiffs?
In 1998, the Supreme Court adopted subdivision (f) to Rule 23 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, permitting interlocutory review by a court of appeals of a district court’s decision granting or denying a motion for class certification under Rule 23. The adoption of the rule came after years of agitation, primarily from the defense bar and business interests, which had complained that class certification rulings often had a coercive effect on class action defendants by placing “insurmountable pressure” on them to settle, even where a plaintiff’s case was weak on the merits, and that it was therefore necessary to provide immediate appellate review so that defendants aren’t coerced by faulty class certification rulings into settling meritless claims.
Courts Breathing New Life into Consumer-Oriented Tobacco Claims
In recent years, while many favorable outcomes had been reported in personal injury cases stemming from smoking-related ailments, e.g., Boeken v. Philip Morris Inc., 127 Cal. App. 4th 1640, 26 Cal. Rptr. 3d 638 (2d Dist. 2005) (award of $5.5 million compensatory damages and $50 million punitive damages to smoker who developed lung cancer that metastasized to his brain), consumer fraud claims against “Big Tobacco” had experienced rough sledding in both the federal and state courts. By “consumer fraud,” we can broadly categorize those claims that don’t entail personal injuries for smoking-related ailments.


