On April 4, 2022, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit joined the Ninth Circuit in holding that a plaintiff lacked Article III standing to prosecute her statutory claims under the Fair Credit Reporting Act (FCRA) in federal court.
In a series of significant recent decisions, a New York district court held that federal courts lack jurisdiction to hear claims alleging violations of New York’s wage statement and wage notice claims under the Wage Theft Prevention Act.
The 6th and 8th Circuits recently joined many district courts in holding that federal courts cannot exercise jurisdiction over FLSA claims that arise from out-of-state conduct when the defendant is not subject to the court’s general personal jurisdiction.
The Illinois General Assembly is currently considering House Bill 559, which seeks to materially revise BIPA’s rigid compliance obligations and limit an individual’s ability to file a class action lawsuit against a non-compliant entity.
In a recent decision, the Fifth Circuit left open the possibility that federal courts may be prevented from exercising jurisdiction over a non-resident defendant, in a Rule 23 class action, with respect to non-resident class members.
In Ramirez v. Trans Union, the Ninth Circuit addressed whether, at the class certification stage of a putative class case, only the named plaintiff or all class members must have Article III standing (i.e., a concrete injury in fact) to certify a class.