This week we discuss the often-overlooked, always-confusing Indiana Trial Rule 13(J) that allows for time-barred counterclaims to be raised … or so we thought until last week’s Delacruz v. Wittig decision.
7th Circuit Rejects Heightened Ascertainability Requirement in Consumer Class Actions Signaled in Carrera v. Bayer Corp. (3d Cir. 2013)
In a major decision, the Seventh Circuit rejected the heightened ascertainability requirement for class certification that has been recently adopted in the Third Circuit. As a result, the Seventh Circuit not only rejected adoption of the Third Circuit’s interpretation, but also dissected and found lacking each of the proffered underlying policies. Thus, the Seventh Circuit still recognizes the utility of affidavits in identifying class members. Perhaps the best line: “When it comes to protecting the interests of absent class members, courts should not let the perfect become the enemy of the good.”
Today’s discussion focuses on this week’s Seventh Circuit decision in Remijas v. Neiman Marcus Grp., LLC, in which the court found standing for a putative class action following a cyberattack causing credit card information for 350,000 customers to be accessed.
This week’s discussion focuses on a recent Indiana appellate decision affirming a motion in liming to exclude evidence that the plaintiff in personal injury case was not wearing a seatbelt at the time of the collision. We use this platform to discuss more expansively the admission of evidence of whether an injured person was wearing a seatbelt in the context of a personal injury trial.