US Supreme Court reverses decision to rule on class action question
June 5 (Reuters) - The U.S. Supreme Court on Thursday sidestepped resolving a major issue across class action litigation, turning aside an appeal that could have made it harder for plaintiffs lawyers to bring together groups of people to sue companies and others for alleged wrongdoing.
The justices' order, opens new tab said the court had 'improvidently' agreed in January to hear an appeal by diagnostics testmaker Labcorp, which was challenging a lower court's order that allowed thousands of consumers to sue the company in a class action for damages.
Labcorp's petition focused on a key issue in class actions that implicates billions of dollars: whether judges can certify a class action for damages that includes some members who have not been harmed.
After hearing arguments in the case in April, the Supreme Court took the unsual step on Thursday of dismissing the appeal.
The order did not discuss the merits of the appeal or the court's reasoning. Justice Brett Kavanaugh wrote separately that the court should have ruled for Labcorp.
Labcorp and a lawyer for the company at law firm Jones Day did not immediately respond to requests for comment.
The plaintiffs' lead attorney, Deepak Gupta, in a statement said Labcorp's appeal was procedurally flawed, and called the Supreme Court's order a win for his clients.
'Class actions are a critical tool for ensuring access to the courts,' Gupta said. 'Today's dismissal leaves the law of class actions intact, allowing people to band together to hold powerful corporations accountable for their misconduct.'
The case had attracted many friend-of-the-court briefs at the Supreme Court, as business advocates, legal scholars, antitrust litigators and others tried to influence the justices.
Visually impaired consumers sued Labcorp in 2020 over their inability to use the company's self-service check-in kiosks where a person enters information prior to an appointment for a blood draw or urine screening.
Labcorp said many blind patients either were not aware of the kiosks or had no interest in using them. A federal district court judge in 2022 certified a nationwide class that made claims against Labcorp under the Americans with Disabilities Act and other laws.
In its petition, opens new tab, Labcorp said U.S. appeals courts are divided over whether to certify a class action that includes people who have not been injured.
The possibility that the justices might dismiss the case without ruling on the merits came up at the Supreme Court's argument in April.
Gupta, responding to a question, told the justices that Labcorp could still ask a lower judge to decertify the class action. 'They're not without rights,' Gupta told the court.
The case is Laboratory Corp of America v Davis, U.S. Supreme Court, No. 24-304.
For petitioner: Noel Francisco of Jones Day
For respondent: Deepak Gupta of Gupta Wessler
Read more:
Class action administrators, banks accused of kickback scheme in new lawsuits
Marriott wins US appeals order striking down data breach class action
This Supreme Court case could upend class actions
Lawsuit accuses American Arbitration Association of monopolizing consumer market
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Telegraph
26 minutes ago
- Telegraph
White House tries to water down Russia sanctions
Donald Trump is pressuring a US senator to weaken a Bill that would impose sweeping sanctions on Russia. White House officials hoping to mend relations with Moscow have been quietly contacting senator Lindsey Graham's office urging him to water down his Bill, which aims to cripple Vladimir Putin with huge sanctions. The Bill, backed by nearly the entire Senate, would impose 500 per cent tariffs on countries that continue to buy Russian oil and gas, which bankrolls Putin's war effort. Officials have been demanding the Bill include waivers that would allow Mr Trump to choose who or what was sanctioned, congressional aides told the Wall Street Journal. Other attempts to weaken the legislation include softening the language, replacing 'shall' with 'may' to avoid making the reprimands mandatory. Removing the mandatory nature of the sanctions would render the Bill effectively toothless and do little to hamper Putin's war machine, aides fear. 'We're moving ahead and the White House is included in our conversations,' Richard Blumenthal, senator and lead Democratic co-sponsor of the Bill, told the paper. Russia's war effort is funded by fossil-fuel exports. Moscow has adapted to existing sanctions with relative ease, turning to North Korea and China for support. Fearing the impact on pump prices, Joe Biden, former president, was unwilling to crack down on Russian energy exports. Mr Trump, has threatened to impose sanctions on Ukraine, as well as Russia, if the two sides fail to reach a peace agreement. 'Any sanction package must provide complete flexibility for the president to continue to pursue his desired foreign policy,' a White House official said. They added that the constitution 'vests the president with the authority to conduct diplomacy with foreign nations'. Speaking in the Oval Office alongside Friedrich Merz, German chancellor, on Thursday, the US president said that the Bill should not move forward without his express approval. 'They'll be guided by me. That's how it's supposed to be,' he told reporters. 'They're waiting for me to decide on what to do.' Last week, Mr Graham and Mr Blumenthal visited Ukraine where they applauded the country's drone attack that destroyed 40 aircraft deep inside Russian territory. However, they were ridiculed and accused of 'stirring up' the conflict by key allies of Mr Trump, including Steve Bannon. 'By trying to engage Putin – by being friendly and enticing – it's become painfully clear [Putin's] not interested in ending this war,' Mr Graham said earlier this week. '[Putin] needs to see and hear that message as well from us, from the American people,' said Mr Blumenthal. Both said that failing to act now could pull the US deeper into the conflict later. If Putin isn't stopped in Ukraine, Mr Blumenthal said, Nato treaty obligations could compel US troops into battle. Earlier this week, Russian negotiators tabled a long memorandum, resembling a complete capitulation for Ukraine, in a second round of direct talks with Kyiv in Istanbul. They demanded Ukraine must withdraw its troops from four eastern regions that Russia only partially occupies and that international recognition of Russian sovereignty over them and Crimea must be granted.
Daily Mail
27 minutes ago
- Daily Mail
Mystery will surfaces in battle over tech mogul's $500million fortune
A mysterious will said to be the final wishes of Zappos founder Tony Hsieh has emerged five years after his death. The tech giant, worth over $500 million, died after a fire engulfed his friend's Connecticut home in 2020, having only retired three-months earlier from the billion-dollar firm. His family had until recently believed he left no final will, with a new report from the Wall Street Journal saying the document mysteriously appeared this spring. According to the outlet the document has Hsieh's signature on it and is dated 2015, five years before the 46-year-old died. In the months leading up to his death he had been battling severe drug and alcohol abuse. The will was delivered to the office of Nevada based estate attorney Robert Armstrong, who had never met Hsieh before or worked with him. He was named as an executor. The discovery has thrown his probate case into turmoil. Armstrong said in court filing seen by the outlet, that he was shocked to have received the document. The will is said to transfer over $50 million and several Las Vegas properties to a series of trusts with as yet unknown beneficiaries. It is also said to include several charitable donations including $3 million to his alma mater Harvard University. The rest would go to his family. Hsieh was inside a shed near the property in New London when he was caught in the fire At a hearing on Thursday there was no further clues as to how legitimate the document is, or where it came from. The court heard that after Armstrong received the will he got a phone call from a man named Kashif Singh. Singh told the lawyer that the will had been passed to him by his late grandfather, Pir Muhammad, who was named as a co-executor. The revelation has stumped those involved in Hsieh's estate and the court, with both sides unsure how to proceed. Armstrong, alongside attorney and co-executor Mark Ferrario, have claimed that Hsieh's family's legal team have been aggressive in their approach. In a filing, they said the family's lawyers had adopted a 'scorched earth approach' and made over 70 requests for documents to 'invalidate the will'. Dara Goldsmith, a lawyer representing the family, told the Journal: 'There is nothing 'scorched earth' about thoroughly examining a document that comes out of nowhere, more than four years after Tony Hsieh's death.' She added that Richard Hsieh, his father, 'has faithfully administered his son Tony's estate and guarded Tony's legacy.' Goldsmith told the court on Thursday that the family hadn't decided on whether to challenge the will. Prior to his death, Hsieh had gone on a massive buying spree, buying up at least seven multi-millionaire dollars homes, a private club and a vacant lot. He spent at least $50 million as part of his plan to relocate to the millionaires' playground of Park City, Utah. Hsieh, who was born in Illinois and was the son of Taiwanese immigrants, studied at Harvard University before he joined Zappos - then called - in 1999. As CEO, he helped transform the fledgling internet start-up into a billion-dollar business. Zappos was sold to Amazon for $1.2 billion in 2009, but Hsieh remained with the company until his retirement in 2020. For years, Hsieh also worked to revitalize downtown Las Vegas, pledging $350 million in 2013 for redevelopment. The same year he moved Zappos' headquarters into the former Las Vegas City Hall building.
Reuters
29 minutes ago
- Reuters
US Supreme Court keeps DOGE records blocked in watchdog group's challenge
June 6 (Reuters) - The U.S. Supreme Court extended on Friday its block on judicial orders requiring the Department of Government Efficiency to turn over records to a government watchdog group that sought details on the entity established by President Donald Trump and previously spearheaded by his billionaire former adviser Elon Musk. The court put on hold Washington-based U.S. District Judge Christopher Cooper's orders for DOGE to respond to requests by Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington for information about its operations. The judge concluded that DOGE likely is a government agency covered by the federal Freedom of Information Act (FOIA). The brief, unsigned order said that portions of one of the judge's decisions "are not appropriately tailored" and that "separation of powers concerns counsel judicial deference and restraint in the context of discovery regarding internal Executive Branch communications." The court sent the case back to a lower appeals court to narrow the judge's directives. The court's three liberal justices - Sonia Sotomayor, Elena Kagan and Ketanji Brown Jackson - dissented from Friday's decision. In a separate case, the Supreme Court on Friday permitted DOGE broad access to personal information on millions of Americans in Social Security Administration data systems while a legal challenge plays out. DOGE has played a central role in Trump's efforts to downsize and reshape the U.S. government including by slashing the federal workforce and dismantling certain agencies. The watchdog group, called CREW, said its intention was to shed light on what it called DOGE's secretive structure and operations. Musk formally ended his government work on May 30 and his once-close relationship with Trump has since unraveled publicly, a split that followed Musk's recent attacks on the president's sweeping tax and spending bill and played out dramatically on social media on Thursday. CREW sued to obtain an array of records from DOGE through the FOIA statute, a law that allows the public to seek access to records produced by government agencies. It sought information on DOGE's activities over its role in the mass firings and cuts to federal programs pursued since the Republican president returned to office in January. The Trump administration contends that DOGE is an advisory entity and not subject to FOIA. In response, CREW sought information to determine whether DOGE is subject to FOIA because it wields the kind of authority of an agency independent of the president. Cooper ruled in April that DOGE must turn over some records sought by CREW and that the group was entitled to question DOGE official Amy Gleason at a deposition. The U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit declined on May 14 to put Cooper's order on hold. The administration urged the Supreme Court to act, saying that the judge's orders intruded on the powers of the executive branch and compromised the ability of a wide array of advisers to provide candid and confidential advice to the president. CREW told the justices that siding with the administration in the dispute would give the president "free reign" to create new entities that would "functionally wield substantial independent authority but are exempt from critical transparency laws." In one of his decisions, Cooper said DOGE's operations have been marked by "unusual secrecy." In another, the judge said that the language of Trump's executive orders concerning DOGE suggests that it is "exercising substantial independent authority."
