This week’s discussion focuses on when an employer can be held liable for the intentional and criminal actions of its employees. The case for discussion finds that an employer may be liable where a security guard shot a woman with whom he was romantically involved after an argument while he was on guard duty at an apartment complex.
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.