Federal Bar Update: Supreme Court takes rare steps on procedural decisions

Back to TopCommentsE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

FedBarMaley-sigWith its limited docket, the U.S. Supreme Court rarely decides procedural issues, focusing instead on weighty constitutional issues or resolving split interpretations of federal statutes. This term, however, the Supreme Court has addressed several procedural issues.

Class actions – In Standard Fire Ins. Co. v. Knowles, (March 19, 2013), plaintiff brought a class action in state court and stipulated not seeking more than $5 million. Defendant removed asserting diversity and that the amount in controversy met the $5 million threshold under the Class Action Fairness Act. The District Court remanded based on plaintiff’s stipulation as to damages.

The Supreme Court reversed, holding that plaintiffs bringing class actions cannot escape federal jurisdiction by promising to seek less than $5 million in damages. The court – in interpreting the Class Action Fairness Act – ruled that a plaintiff has no power to bind other class members.

In Amgen v. Connecticut Retirement Plans & Trust, (Feb. 27, 2013), the court ruled in a securities 10(b)(5) action that while plaintiff “certainly must prove materiality to prevail on the merits, we hold that such proof is not a prerequisite to class certification.” The court explained, “Rule 23(b)(3) requires a showing that questions common to the class predominate, not that those questions will be answered, on the merits, in favor of the class.”

By contrast, in Comcast Corp. v. Behrend, (March 27, 2013), the court ruled that class certification was improperly certified in the antitrust case. The lower court needed to decide whether the named plaintiffs’ proposed damages model could show damages on a class-wide basis. That this issue intertwined with the merits did not matter.

The court explained: “A party seeking to maintain a class action must be prepared to show that Rule 23(a)’s numerosity, commonality, typicality, and adequacy-of-representation requirements have been met, and must satisfy through evidentiary proof at least one of Rule 23(b)’s provisions. Courts may have to ‘probe behind the pleadings before coming to rest on the certification question,’ and [a] certification is proper only if ‘the trial court is satisfied, after a rigorous analysis, that [Rule 23’s] prerequisites …have been satisfied.’”

Collective FLSA action – In Genesis Healthcare Corp. v. Symczyk, (April 16, 2013), the underlying case was an FLSA suit on behalf of plaintiff and other “similarly situated” employees. Defendant made an offer of judgment to plaintiff for the full amount of plaintiff’s claim. No other claimants had opted in.

The Supreme Court held that the District Court lacked subject-matter jurisdiction when named plaintiff’s claim became moot by the full Rule 68 offer of judgment and no other claimant had opted in. The court noted that the plaintiff did not challenge mootness, and also noted differences between FLSA collective actions and class actions.

Increased filing fee Effective May 1, civil filing fees increased to $400 for filing a new civil action.

Updated benchbook for U.S. District judges – The 6th edition of this benchbook, published by the Federal Judicial Center, is publicly available as a pdf at: Search in publications for “benchbook.”

Save the date – The annual Federal Civil Practice 3-hour CLE seminar will be Thursday, Dec. 19 from 1:30 – 4:45 p.m. in Indianapolis.

Run with other attorneysThe 5th annual Joseph Maley Foundation 5k Run, Walk, Roll is set for 9 a.m. July 13 at Eagle Creek Park in Indianapolis. This event is well attended by area attorneys. To register or sponsor, see•


John Maley – – is a partner with Barnes & Thornburg LLP, practicing federal and state litigation, employment matters and appeals. The opinions expressed are those of the author.


Post a comment to this story

We reserve the right to remove any post that we feel is obscene, profane, vulgar, racist, sexually explicit, abusive, or hateful.
You are legally responsible for what you post and your anonymity is not guaranteed.
Posts that insult, defame, threaten, harass or abuse other readers or people mentioned in Indiana Lawyer editorial content are also subject to removal. Please respect the privacy of individuals and refrain from posting personal information.
No solicitations, spamming or advertisements are allowed. Readers may post links to other informational websites that are relevant to the topic at hand, but please do not link to objectionable material.
We may remove messages that are unrelated to the topic, encourage illegal activity, use all capital letters or are unreadable.

Messages that are flagged by readers as objectionable will be reviewed and may or may not be removed. Please do not flag a post simply because you disagree with it.

Sponsored by
Subscribe to Indiana Lawyer
  1. Lori, you must really love wedding cake stories like this one ... happy enuf ending for you?

  2. This new language about a warning has not been discussed at previous meetings. It's not available online. Since it must be made public knowledge before the vote, does anyone know exactly what it says? Further, this proposal was held up for 5 weeks because members Carol and Lucy insisted that all terms used be defined. So now, definitions are unnecessary and have not been inserted? Beyond these requirements, what is the logic behind giving one free pass to discriminators? Is that how laws work - break it once and that's ok? Just don't do it again? Three members of Carmel's council have done just about everything they can think of to prohibit an anti-discrimination ordinance in Carmel, much to Brainard's consternation, I'm told. These three 'want to be so careful' that they have failed to do what at least 13 other communities, including Martinsville, have already done. It's not being careful. It's standing in the way of what 60% of Carmel residents want. It's hurting CArmel in thT businesses have refused to locate because the council has not gotten with the program. And now they want to give discriminatory one free shot to do so. Unacceptable. Once three members leave the council because they lost their races, the Carmel council will have unanimous approval of the ordinance as originally drafted, not with a one free shot to discriminate freebie. That happens in January 2016. Why give a freebie when all we have to do is wait 3 months and get an ordinance with teeth from Day 1? If nothing else, can you please get s copy from Carmel and post it so we can see what else has changed in the proposal?

  3. Here is an interesting 2012 law review article for any who wish to dive deeper into this subject matter: Excerpt: "Judicial interpretation of the ADA has extended public entity liability to licensing agencies in the licensure and certification of attorneys.49 State bar examiners have the authority to conduct fitness investigations for the purpose of determining whether an applicant is a direct threat to the public.50 A “direct threat” is defined as “a significant risk to the health or safety of others that cannot be eliminated by a modification of policies, practices or procedures, or by the provision of auxiliary aids or services as provided by § 35.139.”51 However, bar examiners may not utilize generalizations or stereotypes about the applicant’s disability in concluding that an applicant is a direct threat.52"

  4. We have been on the waiting list since 2009, i was notified almost 4 months ago that we were going to start receiving payments and we still have received nothing. Every time I call I'm told I just have to wait it's in the lawyers hands. Is everyone else still waiting?

  5. I hope you dont mind but to answer my question. What amendment does this case pretain to?