PRACTITIONER BLOG

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

Impact Fund & AMICI Urge Sixth Circuit to Affirm Class Certification in Discriminatory Water Billing Case
Class Action Cert, Amicus Brief Teddy Basham-Witherington Class Action Cert, Amicus Brief Teddy Basham-Witherington

Impact Fund & AMICI Urge Sixth Circuit to Affirm Class Certification in Discriminatory Water Billing Case

In October 2024, the Impact Fund and fellow amici Bet Tzedek Legal Services, Centro Legal de la Raza, Legal Aid at Work, and Public Counsel, filed a brief urging the Sixth Circuit to uphold the federal district court’s certification of a class of Black Cleveland residents who brought a lawsuit alleging discriminatory water billing practices by the City.   

Read More
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 Amicus Brief to rebuff defamation claims in Class Action litigation
Class Actions, Litigation Privilege Teddy Basham-Witherington Class Actions, Litigation Privilege Teddy Basham-Witherington

Impact Fund and Allies file Amicus Brief to rebuff defamation claims in Class Action litigation

The Impact Fund and amici focused on the panel’s misunderstanding of “ascertainability,” a term of art particular to class actions. Ascertainability is the implied prerequisite that a class be defined by clear and definite terms so that a court can determine who is bound by a judgment and who is entitled to relief. Critical to the issue at hand, ascertainability is a forward-looking inquiry, asking whether a court will be able to ascertain class membership at some future point in the litigation. It has never meant that plaintiffs know who is in the proposed class at the time of filing.

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 Amici: Ninth Circuit’s New “De Minimis” Standard for Predominance Is Wrong and Disadvantages Workers
De Minimis Standard, Class Actions Teddy Basham-Witherington De Minimis Standard, Class Actions Teddy Basham-Witherington

Impact Fund and Amici: Ninth Circuit’s New “De Minimis” Standard for Predominance Is Wrong and Disadvantages Workers

Our brief argues that the panel’s decision is inconsistent with decades of Supreme Court and Ninth Circuit precedent regarding class certification and trials challenging employment discrimination and other workplace violations, such as wage theft. To require plaintiffs to demonstrate no more than a “de minimis” number of uninjured class members at the class certification stage forces district courts to engage in a full-blown inquiry into the merits of the case, an inquiry which the Supreme Court and the Ninth Circuit have repeatedly stated courts are expressly forbidden to undertake at that stage.

Read More