PRACTITIONER BLOG

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

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
Ninth Circuit Panel Decertifies Class of Janitorial & Maintenance Workers:  Impact Fund & Amici Urge Rehearing
Class Actions, Amicus Brief, Class Action Cert Ashley LaFranchi Class Actions, Amicus Brief, Class Action Cert Ashley LaFranchi

Ninth Circuit Panel Decertifies Class of Janitorial & Maintenance Workers: Impact Fund & Amici Urge Rehearing

A certified class of janitorial and maintenance workers survived two motions for decertification, successfully proved employer wrongdoing at summary judgment, and received significant damages in a jury bellwether trial before seeing their efforts undone by the Ninth Circuit. The recent panel opinion in Bowerman v. Field Asset Services, Inc., 39 F.4th 652, 661-63 (9th Cir. 2022), reversed certification after over seven years of litigation as a certified class. In doing so, the panel blatantly ignored the district judge’s repeated conclusion that the case was best managed as a class action.

Read More
Protect Nutrition Assistance for Vulnerable Low-Income Adults, Say Impact Fund and Others in Amicus Brief
SNAP, Amicus Brief Upgrow SNAP, Amicus Brief Upgrow

Protect Nutrition Assistance for Vulnerable Low-Income Adults, Say Impact Fund and Others in Amicus Brief

Last Thursday, the Impact Fund, Western Center on Law and Poverty, and Pillsbury Winthrop Shaw Pittman LLC filed an amicus brief on behalf of our organizations and 27 additional legal and advocacy organizations in California, including a number of anti-hunger groups, in support of the plaintiffs in the D.C. case. Our brief focuses specifically on discretionary exemptions, which will be critical to California’s economic recovery. We detail the legislative debates considering and ultimately rejecting the very same changes that USDA seeks to implement, the plain language and history of the statute, and the harm that California faces if it loses its reserve of over 850,000 exemptions. California uses discretionary exemptions to prevent hunger in communities that face special difficulties in finding work, such as people who are formerly incarcerated or young adults aging out of the foster care system. If USDA’s rule goes into effect, it will eliminate the State’s reserve and could cause thousands of Californians to go hungry.

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