ARTICLE
30 October 2025

Class Action Decisions Published September 2025

SH
Shook, Hardy & Bacon

Contributor

Shook, Hardy & Bacon has long been recognized as one of the premier litigation firms in the country. For more than a century, the firm has defended companies in their most substantial national and international products liability, mass tort and complex litigation matters.

The firm has leveraged its complex product liability litigation expertise to expand into several other practice areas and advance its mission of “being the best in the world at providing creative and practical solutions at unsurpassed value.” As a result, the firm has built nationally recognized practices in areas such as intellectual property, environmental and toxic tort, employment litigation, commercial litigation, government enforcement and compliance, and public policy.

The Ninth Circuit held that if a plaintiff files a lawsuit in state court seeking only equitable relief and the case is properly removed to federal court, a defendant can defeat remand on equitable jurisdiction grounds by waiving the adequate-remedy-at-law issue.
United States Litigation, Mediation & Arbitration
Mitchell F. Engel’s articles from Shook, Hardy & Bacon are most popular:
  • within Litigation and Mediation & Arbitration topic(s)
Shook, Hardy & Bacon are most popular:
  • within Litigation, Mediation & Arbitration, Government, Public Sector and Environment topic(s)
  • in European Union
  • with readers working within the Environment & Waste Management and Utilities industries

Highlights from this issue include: 

  • Class Action Fairness Removal. The Ninth Circuit held that if a plaintiff files a lawsuit in state court seeking only equitable relief and the case is properly removed to federal court, a defendant can defeat remand on equitable jurisdiction grounds by waiving the adequate-remedy-at-law issue.
  • Automobile Insurance. The Ninth Circuit affirmed a district court order denying certification of a class of auto insurance policyholders who alleged Progressive miscalculated the actual cash value of totaled vehicles because it applied a “projected sold adjustment,” which was a reduction to the list prices of comparable vehicles to reflect consumer negotiations. (There are a lot of cases in different jurisdictions advancing this theory and courts are splitting on whether such claims can be certified.)
  • Securities. The Ninth Circuit held a district court did not err by considering circumstantial evidence of a price drop immediately after an alleged corrective disclosure in determining whether to certify a class.

The content of this article is intended to provide a general guide to the subject matter. Specialist advice should be sought about your specific circumstances.

Mondaq uses cookies on this website. By using our website you agree to our use of cookies as set out in our Privacy Policy.

Learn More