PRACTITIONER BLOG

Read our analyses of developments in Impact Litigation and stay current on class action law

IMPACT FUND & AMICI to CALIFORNIA COURT OF APPEAL: PROTECT CATALYST FEES
Class Actions, Catalyst Attorneys Fees Teddy Basham-Witherington Class Actions, Catalyst Attorneys Fees Teddy Basham-Witherington

IMPACT FUND & AMICI to CALIFORNIA COURT OF APPEAL: PROTECT CATALYST FEES

In June, Impact Fund filed an amicus brief on behalf of thirty-six other public interest law organizations in San Diego Tenant Union et al. v. San Diego Housing Commission et al., in the California Court of Appeal. Our brief asked the Court to affirm the availability of catalyst fees to plaintiffs' counsel in successful public interest lawsuits because nonprofit legal services organizations rely upon the fee-shifting provisions of catalyst fees to undertake important litigation. “Catalyst fees” are a legal mechanism by which defendants pay plaintiffs attorneys’ fees when plaintiffs’ lawsuit induces defendants to provide the relief sought by plaintiffs—in other words, when plaintiffs’ lawsuit “catalyzes” defendants’ change in conduct.

Read More
Impact Fund and Allies File Class Action Amicus Brief in Ninth Circuit On Behalf of Seniors and People With Disabilities
Class Action Commonality, Disability Rights, Amicus Brief Teddy Basham-Witherington Class Action Commonality, Disability Rights, Amicus Brief Teddy Basham-Witherington

Impact Fund and Allies File Class Action Amicus Brief in Ninth Circuit On Behalf of Seniors and People With Disabilities

The amicus brief authored by the Impact Fund, Disability Rights Advocates, and the Disability Rights Education and Defense Fund argues that the district court’s decision ran afoul of existing case law and will undermine enforcement of ADA access laws in the precise cases where systemwide enforcement is most needed.

Read More
Talking Turkey: Impact Fund Files Amicus Brief To Protect Catalyst Fees For Plaintiffs
Catalyst Attorneys Fees, Public Interest Law Teddy Basham-Witherington Catalyst Attorneys Fees, Public Interest Law Teddy Basham-Witherington

Talking Turkey: Impact Fund Files Amicus Brief To Protect Catalyst Fees For Plaintiffs

In Direct Action Everywhere v. Diestel Turkey Ranch, the plaintiff filed a false advertising lawsuit alleging that Diestel was deceiving customers about the condition in which it kept animals on its properties. Several days into the trial, Diestel voluntarily removed the allegedly false statements from its website as part of a “website refresh.” The trial court denied Direct Action’s motion for catalyst fees for multiple reasons, two of which stood out to the Impact Fund and its allies. First, the court scorned the plaintiff’s reason for bringing the lawsuit and, second, it criticized the plaintiff’s activities outside the courtroom.

Read More
Impact Fund and NAACP Legal Defense Fund to SCOTUS: Don’t Rewrite Typicality
Class Action Typicality Teddy Basham-Witherington Class Action Typicality Teddy Basham-Witherington

Impact Fund and NAACP Legal Defense Fund to SCOTUS: Don’t Rewrite Typicality

The Impact Fund and NAACP Legal Defense and Educational Fund, Inc. filed an amicus brief in the U.S. Supreme Court on behalf of ourselves and twenty-four civil rights organizations. We argue that Ramirez indisputably satisfied typicality, as every class member in the case presented the same claims, were subject to the same conduct, and sought the same relief as Ramirez did. “TransUnion seeks to turn Rule 23 typicality on its head, asking the high court to rewrite the rule to protect defendants rather than absent class members,” declared Impact Fund’s Executive Director Jocelyn Larkin. “Nothing in the language or purpose of the rule supports TransUnion’s approach.”

Read More
Impact Fund & Amici to Eleventh Circuit: Eliminating Service Awards Endangers Class Actions
Class Actions, Service Awards Teddy Basham-Witherington Class Actions, Service Awards Teddy Basham-Witherington

Impact Fund & Amici to Eleventh Circuit: Eliminating Service Awards Endangers Class Actions

A recent decision by the Eleventh Circuit Court of Appeals stunned the class action and civil rights community. In Johnson v. NPAS Solutions., LLC, 975 F.3d 1244, a 2-1 majority ruled that service awards for class representatives in class actions are categorically unlawful.On October 29, the Impact Fund filed an amicus brief calling on the full Eleventh Circuit to review the decision en banc. Our amicus brief on behalf of civil rights groups argues that service payments and incentive awards appropriately compensate plaintiffs for the considerable responsibility they undertake in class action cases and on behalf of fellow class members.

Read More
Impact Fund and Allies File Amicus Brief Urging SCOTUS to Protect LGBTQ Workers
LGBTQ Workers, Workplace Discrimination Teddy Basham-Witherington LGBTQ Workers, Workplace Discrimination Teddy Basham-Witherington

Impact Fund and Allies File Amicus Brief Urging SCOTUS to Protect LGBTQ Workers

LGBTQ workers are entitled to the full protections of our nation’s laws.  If the Supreme Court rules that Title VII does not prohibit discrimination based on sexual orientation and gender identity, it will create an arbitrary and painful carve-out to the landmark civil rights law, leaving LGBTQ workers vulnerable to discrimination and harassment on the job.  The Impact Fund and our allies urge the Court to adopt a uniform, protective standard that will fulfill Title VII’s promise of equal employment opportunity for all.  

Read More
California Supreme Court Ponders Digital Discrimination Case, White v. Square
Digital Discrimination, Unruh Act Teddy Basham-Witherington Digital Discrimination, Unruh Act Teddy Basham-Witherington

California Supreme Court Ponders Digital Discrimination Case, White v. Square

Along with Disability Rights Advocates and the Disability Rights Education and Defense Fund, the Impact Fund has written an amicus brief urging the California Supreme Court to recognize that turning users away through discriminatory terms of service or other actions is illegal discrimination, and that users who are deterred by discriminatory terms should be able to bring legal claims in court. 

Read More
Impact Fund Files Amicus On Behalf Of Military's Diabetic Kids
Article III Standing, Disability Rights Teddy Basham-Witherington Article III Standing, Disability Rights Teddy Basham-Witherington

Impact Fund Files Amicus On Behalf Of Military's Diabetic Kids

Standing is like a light switch; a plaintiff has either alleged an identifiable injury or not. The concept of Article III standing is used by the courts to distinguish between a dispute that is properly before the court, rather than an abstract interest intended to be addressed by the legislature. Given this, the Supreme Court and the Ninth Circuit have consistently held that a minimal injury is sufficient to confer standing and have never weighed one’s injury relative to their resources.

Read More
Class Actions, Economic Justice Teddy Basham-Witherington Class Actions, Economic Justice Teddy Basham-Witherington

Economic Justice: Resisting Zombie Claims by SSA

Imagine receiving a notice from the IRS that your long-awaited tax refund has been withheld by the Social Security Administration (“SSA”) because you were once paid Social Security benefits and SSA has identified a benefit overpayment that occurred over a decade ago — or one of your parents was once paid Social Security benefits on your behalf over a decade ago and SSA identified an overpayment. If the withheld amount was $2,100, would you go out and find an attorney to represent you in an individual case against the SSA?

Read More
Class Actions, Disability Rights Teddy Basham-Witherington Class Actions, Disability Rights Teddy Basham-Witherington

Defending the use of Class Actions for Enforcement of Civil Rights Laws

It's a fact of life that long-awaited vacations can sometimes be spoiled by an ill-timed rain storm, lost luggage, or a bad reaction to that local street food.  But discrimination?

Plaintiffs Ann Cupolo-Freeman, Ruthee Goldkorn, and Julie Reiskin use wheelchairs for mobility and were denied equal access to hotel transportation services at hotels owned by Defendant Hospitality Properties Trust (“HPT”). 

Read More