Skip to Content

Class Action Blog

As society becomes increasingly litigious, and as plaintiff attorneys market their services more aggressively, class action litigation is posing a rapidly growing threat to businesses in all sectors.

Class Action Blog
January 7, 2019

Second Circuit Rules Investor Had Article III Standing, But Failed to State Claims

Total Gas & Power North America, Inc. (Total Gas) is a company engaged in natural gas commodity and derivative trading at regional hubs in the western United States. A trader at the West Desk of Total Gas reported market manipulation in four commodities markets to the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC) and the Commodities Future Trading Commission (CFTC). Both agencies concluded Total Gas had engaged in a multi-year strategy to repeatedly manipulate the price of natural gas commodities. 

Class Action Blog
October 7, 2018

Immigration Detainee Class Certification Affirmed by Tenth Circuit

GEO Group (GEO) owned and operated a private contract detention facility in Aurora, Colorado (Aurora Facility) under a contract with the federal Immigration and Customs Enforcement Agency (ICE). The Aurora Facility had in place (1) a housing unit Sanitation Policy (Policy) which required all of its detainees to clean their common living areas, and (2) a Voluntary Work Program (VWP) which paid working detainees $1.00 a day for performing various jobs. The detainees filed suit alleging that the Policy violated the Trafficking Victims Protection Act (TVPA), which prohibited forced labor and the VWP violated the Colorado unjust enrichment law by paying the detainees only $1.00 a day. The District Court certified a TVPA class, which included all of the detainees housed at the Aurora Facility in the prior 10 years, and an Unjust Enrichment Class, which included all detainees who participated in the Aurora Facility’s VWP the prior three years. GEO filed a Rule 23(f) petition for permission to appeal challenging the class certifications. GEO primarily contended that certifying the claims was unjustified because proving the claims “require[d] predominantly individualized determinations, making class treatment inappropriate.” The 10th Circuit affirmed.