Rimon
Save as PDF RSS Feed Subscribe

Entries tagged “Class Action”

Visa & Mastercard Interchange Fees Merchant Class Action Update

Insight Douglas J. Schneller Douglas J. Schneller · John J. Hanley John J. Hanley · Patrick Maschio Patrick Maschio · April 24, 2019
In recent years merchants, regulators, banks and financial institutions, consumers and other parties have been keenly focused on “interchange fees” charged to merchants by issuers of credit or debit cards for any transaction in which the card is used for a purchase. Interchange fees typically consist of a percentage fee, based on the

Continue Reading…

Consumer Financial Protection Bureau Arbitration Rule Overturned by Senate Action

Insight John R. Mussman John R. Mussman · November 01, 2017
Rimon Partner John Mussman discusses the Senate’s vote to scuttle the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau’s arbitration rule. The arbitration rule restricted financial service companies from forcing customers into arbitration, made it easier for customers to sue banks and financial firms and arguably would have encouraged class

Continue Reading…

Businesses Cannot Request and Record Consumers’ ZIP Codes

Insight February 23, 2011

In Pineda v. Williams Sonoma, the California Supreme Court California ruled that retailers may no longer ask customers for their zip code in a credit card transaction.

Continue Reading…

Class Action For 1.5 Million Wal-Mart Employees Affirmed By Ninth Circuit

Insight June 08, 2010

In the recently decided case of Dukes v. Wal-Mart Stores, the Ninth Circuit upheld a 2004 district court's decision to certify a class that could potentially consist of 1.5 million women employed by Wal-Mart since 1997. Through this gender discrimination class action, the employees seek back pay, declaratory relief, and injunctive relief.

The plaintiffs allege that Wal-Mart engaged in discriminatory pay and promotion practices in violation of Title VII by paying female employees less than their male counterparts and giving fewer promotions to women than to men.

In 2005, after the district court held that class certification was appropriate under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23, Wal-Mart appealed that decision claiming that the class did not satisfy Rule 23(a)'s class requirements and that the potential size and cost of the claim violated Rule 23(b)(2). While the Ninth Circuit did not comment on the merits of the case, it held that there was no violation of Rule 23 that would prevent the class action. Wal-Mart plans to appeal the case to the Supreme Court.

The Ninth Circuit also held that when a district court is determining class status under Rule 23, it must apply a "rigorous analysis." It will be interesting to see whether this standard benefits parties opposing or advocating class certification in the future.

Continue Reading…