Dukes v. Wal-Mart Conference Tomorrow

Tomorrow is a big day as far as class actions go.  The U.S. Supreme Court is scheduled vote on whether or not to grant certiorari in the Dukes v. Wal-Mart case.

The issue that everyone is talking about is whether the Ninth Circuit made a mistake by allowing the class to go forward.  If the Court does decide to hear the case, it would at least be a good sign for Wal-Mart, and several issues make me think they will take the case, overrule the Ninth Circuit, but maybe on narrowed issues.

First, Wal-Mart counsel did a great job in their writ showing that there is a three-way split in the circuits.  The Court loves to clarify the law, especially when there is a split of opinion in the lower courts.  Second, the Ninth Circuit opinion being appealed was en banc, with the result being a 6-5 vote, and a witty dissent by Judge Kozinski, a well respected judge.  Third, there are tremendous implications if the class is allowed to stand.  I must think that if a class of potentially 500,000 is allowed to continue under the multitude of facts, then many aspects of Federal Rule 23 which governs class actions, will be rendered useless.

My opinion is that the case needs to be taken up and reversed.  However, if it does get accepted for review, several of our class actions are going to come to a grinding halt because they are pre-certification, and I do not believe anyone will want to go through the class certification stage again if the Court provides additional guidance on the Rule 23 analysis.

UPDATE 11/29/10:  The SCOTUS orders for today are out.  No action on this case today.

City of Lindsay: Update

This past Friday, The City Manager of Lindsay, Scot Townsend resigned.

I previously linked to a few articles about the controversy here.

I thought Scot was doing a great job, was paid appropriately, and am disappointed he is leaving.

US Supreme Court Hears Argument on Violent Video Games

The US Supreme Court heard argument on Tuesday on the California law which banned the sale of violent video games to minors in some circumstances.

According to this article in the Wall Street Journal, the Justices were seemingly split on the issue.  If you look at the makeup of the court, this case is shaping up to be one of the cases where the Justices align in a way that makes you say "huh"?  I will be curious to see the majority opinion (if there is one).

My opinion:

I do not think the Justices will have a difficult time concluding video games are speech and entitled to First Amendment protection.  Most games in the "shooter" genre (e.g. Halo, Metal Gear Solid, Call of Duty) have intricate story lines and are just as important to the content as the game play itself.  The games tell a story just like a book.  Given that, it will be difficult for the State to justify the necessity of the law, especially when there are already alternatives in place to warn of the content of games, such as the rating system found on the outside of each cartridge.

I do not dare to predict how this case turns out, but I will predict that the wonderfully overused, but descriptive phrase, "slippery slope" will find its way into all opinions on this case.

Update:  The Court ruled on 6/27/11 the Act was unconstitutional.

Kings County Declares Impasse

The Kings County Board of Supervisors declared negotiations had reached impasse last night.  The article shows a common misconception - the public entity is not required to accept proposals from unions.  The entity must only bargain in good faith.

According to the article, it sounds like SEIU presented their proposals, the board considered them, and they were rejected.  That alone is not a basis for lack of good faith, otherwise, every instance where an agreement was not reached would result in bad faith.

via PublicCEO

P.S. For any regular readers, sorry for the delay since my last post - I was swept up in the World Series.  (Go Giants!)