PRACTITIONER BLOG
Read our analyses of developments in Impact Litigation and stay current on class action law
Impact Fund and Allies file Amicus Brief to rebuff defamation claims in Class Action litigation
The Impact Fund and amici focused on the panel’s misunderstanding of “ascertainability,” a term of art particular to class actions. Ascertainability is the implied prerequisite that a class be defined by clear and definite terms so that a court can determine who is bound by a judgment and who is entitled to relief. Critical to the issue at hand, ascertainability is a forward-looking inquiry, asking whether a court will be able to ascertain class membership at some future point in the litigation. It has never meant that plaintiffs know who is in the proposed class at the time of filing.
Talking Turkey: Impact Fund Files Amicus Brief To Protect Catalyst Fees For Plaintiffs
In Direct Action Everywhere v. Diestel Turkey Ranch, the plaintiff filed a false advertising lawsuit alleging that Diestel was deceiving customers about the condition in which it kept animals on its properties. Several days into the trial, Diestel voluntarily removed the allegedly false statements from its website as part of a “website refresh.” The trial court denied Direct Action’s motion for catalyst fees for multiple reasons, two of which stood out to the Impact Fund and its allies. First, the court scorned the plaintiff’s reason for bringing the lawsuit and, second, it criticized the plaintiff’s activities outside the courtroom.
Impact Fund and Amici: Ninth Circuit’s New “De Minimis” Standard for Predominance Is Wrong and Disadvantages Workers
Our brief argues that the panel’s decision is inconsistent with decades of Supreme Court and Ninth Circuit precedent regarding class certification and trials challenging employment discrimination and other workplace violations, such as wage theft. To require plaintiffs to demonstrate no more than a “de minimis” number of uninjured class members at the class certification stage forces district courts to engage in a full-blown inquiry into the merits of the case, an inquiry which the Supreme Court and the Ninth Circuit have repeatedly stated courts are expressly forbidden to undertake at that stage.