Mauthe, M.D., P.C. v. Optum Inc., ___ F.3d ___ (3d Cir. 2019). Plaintiff, a medical practice, received an unsolicited fax from defendants. Defendants maintain a database of healthcare providers, a database that they sell to various entities. To keep the database current, defendants send unsolicited faxes to listed providers, asking them to respond and correct any inaccurate information. Defendants’ faxes explain that, and say that “This is not an attempt to sell you anything.” Plaintiff filed a putative class action under the Telephone Consumer Protection Act, 47 U.S.C. 227...

Home Depot U.S.A., Inc. v. Jackson, ___ U.S. ___ (2019). Among other changes made by the so-called Class Action Fairness Act of 2005, 28 U.S.C. 1453(b) (“CAFA”) made it easier for class action defendants to remove to federal court putative class action cases filed in state courts. That provision states that a class action may be removed by “any defendant without the consent of all defendants.” CAFA supplemented the general removal statute, 28 U.S.C. 1441(a), which permits removal of any civil action “by the defendant or the defendants.” But what about the...

Feuer v. Merck & Co., Inc., ___ N.J. ___ (2019). As discussed here, the Appellate Division, in an opinion by Judge Ostrer that was reported at 455 N.J. Super. 69 (App. Div. 2019), affirmed (after de novo review of the legal issues involved) a ruling of the Chancery Division that had ruled against plaintiff, a Merck shareholder, in his demand to review various Merck documents. Plaintiff had invoked both N.J.S.A. 14A:5-28 and the common law. Today, in a 6-0 vote, the Supreme Court affirmed based on Judge Ostrer’s opinion. In essence, the Appellate Division concluded that...