Class Actions


“Allowing a case to go forward as a class action where the critical requirements of class certification are absent – be it ascertainability, predominance or typicality – often creates a no-win situation for the defendant regardless of whether the claims involved have any substantive merit. As a result, defendants are frequently forced to settle non-meritorious claims simply because they have been denied procedural fairness. For this reason, PLAC is actively involved in amicus efforts, particularly at the appellate level, to ensure fairness in class certification proceedings.”— John H. Beisner, Skadden, Arps, Slate, Meagher & Flom LLP


Amicus Briefs

 

Microsoft Corp. v. Baker

U.S. Supreme Court (pet.) (2015)
Authored by John H. Beisner and Jessica D. Miller, Skadden, Arps, Slate, Meagher & Flom LLP, Washington, D.C.

Edwards v. Ford Motor Co.

Ninth Circuit (2014)
Authored by John H. Beisner, Skadden, Arps, Slate, Meagher & Flom LLP, Washington, D.C.

Glazer v. Whirlpool Corp.

U.S. Supreme Court (2013)
Authored by John H. Beisner, Skadden, Arps, Slate, Meagher & Flom LLP, Washington, D.C.

In re Toyota Motor Corp. Unintended Acceleration Mktg., Sales Practices & Prods. Liab. Litig.

Ninth Circuit (2013)
Authored by Alan J. Lazurus, Drinkle Biddle & Reath LLP, San Francisco, CA

Carrera v. Bayer Corp.

Third Circuit (2012)
Authored by John H. Beisner, Skadden, Arps, Slate, Meagher & Flom LLP, Washington, D.C.

Hummel v. Wal-Mart

PA Supreme Court (2012)
Authored by James M. Beck, Reed Smith LLP, Philadelphia, PA

Graphic Communications Local v. CVS

MN Supreme Court (2013)
Authored by Mark Olson, Oppenheimer Wolff & Donnelly LLP, Minneapolis, MN