In Lubin v. Starbucks Corp., 2024 WL 5113125 (11th Cir. Dec. 16, 2024), the Eleventh Circuit rejected an employer’s attempt to compel arbitration of claims brought by a former employee’s husband, where he had not signed an agreement with the employer and his claims were not sufficiently related to his wife’s employment agreement. The decision…
Author: Stacey Mohr
Whether Statute Overrides the Federal Arbitration Act Must Be Decided by a Court, Not an Arbitrator
The Eleventh Circuit again faced the question (becoming increasingly common in the world of arbitration enforcement) of precisely which challenges to “arbitrability” can and cannot be contractually delegated to an arbitrator. The challenge in Steines v. Westgate Palace, L.L.C., 2024 WL 4052630 (11th Cir. Sept. 5, 2024), was based on the Military Lending Act (MLA),…
Ignore the Citizenship of Your LCC Client at Your Peril
When subject-matter jurisdiction is based on diversity, the presence of a limited liability company or a partnership on the pleadings may require a complicated and time-consuming investigation into that party’s citizenship. The Eleventh Circuit’s decision in J.C. Penney Corporation v. Oxford Mall, LLC, No. 22-12461, 2024 WL 1904569 (May 1, 2024), is an example of…
Court Identifies Factors for Analyzing Fairness of Class Settlements
The court took the opportunity to provide guidance to courts and class-action litigants on considering the fairness of a class settlement under the 2018 amendments to Rule 23(e) in Ponzio v. Pinon, 87 F.4th 487 (11th Cir. 2023). The court affirmed approval of the settlement, concluding that the district court appropriately analyzed and rejected the…
No Jurisdiction Over Interlocutory Appeal in Employment-Retaliation Case
In Scott v. Advanced Pharmaceutical Consultants, Inc., No. 21-14214, — F.4th —, 2023 WL 6817369 (11th Cir. Oct. 17, 2023), the Eleventh Circuit concluded that it lacked jurisdiction to review an order granting partial summary judgment to the defendants in an employment-retaliation case. After the district court granted summary judgment to the defendants on three…
No Special Tolling for Plaintiff Who Brings an Untimely FLSA Action After Previous Timely Action Is Dismissed
The Fair Labor Standards Act’s statute of limitations is not tolled when a plaintiff files an FLSA action that is later dismissed and then files a new, untimely, action. This was the court’s holding in Wright v. Waste Pro USA, Inc., 696 F.4th 1332 (June 13, 2023), which also rejected the plaintiff’s request for equitable…
Individualized Issues May Predominate Standing Inquiry in Data-Breach Class Action
As data-breach class actions have become increasingly frequent in recent years, courts continue to grapple with whether, and to what extent, these cases meet the requirements for certification of a damages class under Rule 23(b)(3). In its latest such case, Green-Cooper v. Brinker Int’l, Inc., No. 21-13146, 73 F. 4th 883 (July 11, 2023), the…
Class Certification in Consumer-Fraud Case Depends on What Evidence—if Any—Is Required to Establish Reliance Under State Law
The Eleventh Circuit reversed and remanded class certification of most claims brought by a group of consumers who alleged their Ford Mustang Shelby GT350s were not “track ready” as advertised. The court’s decision in Tershakovec v. Ford Motor Company, No. 22-10575, — F.4th —, 2023 WL 4377585 (11th Cir. July 7, 2023), focused on the…
CFPB’s “Egregious” Conduct Provides Roadmap for How Not to Defend a 30(b)(6) Deposition
The deposition of a party’s corporate representative under Rule 30(b)(6) often presents a tension between inquiry into the party’s knowledge of facts—which is fair game—and inquiry into the party’s legal positions—which can delve into protected attorney work-product. Lawyers representing the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau (“CFPB”) in a case about an allegedly fraudulent debt-collection scheme provided…
Language of Insurance Policy Governs Even When Flatly Contradicted by Clear and Overwhelming Proof of the Parties’ Intent
It is a truth universally acknowledged (by judges and lawyers, anyway), that unambiguous contract language must be interpreted according to its plain terms, without resort to extrinsic evidence. But what if that extrinsic evidence shows, without dispute, that both parties meant something else entirely? That court answered that question in Shiloh Christian Center v. Aspen…