Class action defense cases – Brinker v. Superior Court: California Supreme Court affirms, reverses and remand Class Action Certification ruling In Labor Law Class Action clarifying meal and rest break requirements *

USA - April 15 2012
Plaintiffs filed a putative class action in California state court against their employer, Brinker Restaurant, alleging various labor law violations; specifically, the class action complaint alleged that Brinker failed to provide employees with rest breaks, failed to provide employees with meal breaks, and that Brinker required employees to work “off-the-clock”.

---

KPMG v. Cocchi: Supreme Court reiterates requirement that state courts follow Concepcion and enforce arbitration agreements under the Federal Arbitration Act (FAA) *

USA - November 28 2011
Plaintiffs filed a putative class action in Florida state court against various defendants, including KPMG LLP, for damages suffered as a result of investments made with Bernard Madoff; the class action named the investment funds, the entity that managed the funds, and KPMG as auditor.

---

Class action defense cases – Ellis v. Costco Wholesale Corp.: Ninth Circuit vacates and remands class action certification in gender discrimination labor law case *

USA - October 10 2011
Plaintiffs filed a putative class action against Costco Wholesale alleging that it discriminates in its promotional practices based on gender.

---

Class action defense cases - Kaltwasser v. AT&T Mobility: federal court grants motion to compel arbitration under Federal Arbitration Act (FAA) following concepcion *

USA - October 6 2011
Plaintiff filed a putative class action against cellular telephone service provider, AT&T Mobility, alleging violations of California’s Unfair Competition Law (UCL), False Advertising Law (FAL), Consumer Legal Remedies Act (CLRA) and breach of contract.

---

Class action defense cases - In Re Community Bank: Third Circuit court again reverses approval of class action settlement holding wrong legal standard applied to determine adequacy of representation *

USA - October 4 2011
District court applied wrong legal standard in finding named plaintiffs and their counsel to be adequate representatives of the proposed class under Rule 23(a)(4) and thus abused its discretion in certifying class and approving nationwide class action settlement Third Circuit holds.

---