ARTICLE
5 February 2026

Class Action Decisions Published December 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.

Numerosity Requirement for Settlements. The U.S. District Court for the Northern District of West Virginia denied a motion for final approval of a class action settlement against the City of Morgantown...
United States Litigation, Mediation & Arbitration
Shook, Hardy & Bacon are most popular:
  • within Finance and Banking, International Law and Consumer Protection topic(s)
  • in United States
  • with readers working within the Environment & Waste Management industries

Highlights from this issue include:

  • Numerosity Requirement for Settlements. The U.S. District Court for the Northern District of West Virginia denied a motion for final approval of a class action settlement against the City of Morgantown over the city's decision to enforce an anti-panhandling ordinance because the evidence showed the proposed class likely contained only 15 total persons and was thus "well short of the typical bright line threshold" to satisfy the numerosity requirement.
  • Telephone Consumer Protection Act. The U.S. District Court for the Central District of California denied a renewed motion for class certification in a case alleging a company violated the Telephone Consumer Protection Act by making telemarketing calls to prospective real estate investors. The class failed the typicality requirement because the plaintiffs arguably invited the calls at issue and had credibility issues, the court ruled.

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.

[View Source]
See More Popular Content From

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