On-Demand   On-Demand Web Programs

Class Action Litigation 2018

Released on: Jun. 28, 2018
Running Time: 06:36:51
Class action lawsuits remain an integral and exciting part of high stakes litigation. The courts, including the Supreme Court, have taken notice. You will gain the tools and strategies you need to effectively litigate, mediate or settle these complex cases. Our outstanding faculty of plaintiffs’ and defense counsel, academics and a retired U.S. Magistrate Judge will bring you up-to-date on important developments in class action litigation. You and your clients will benefit from this program whether your practice focuses on employment law, products liability, toxic tort, securities, antitrust, consumer fraud, or civil rights. The course also includes pragmatic tips on litigation strategies designed to improve your skills and your chances for success in the courtroom. This program will benefit outside attorneys who are prosecuting or defending class actions, as well as in-house counsel who want to gain a competitive edge in this fast-moving field.

Topics Include
  • Supreme Court review and round-up
  • New developments in CAFA and on the class action landscape
  • Pretrial and courtroom tips and practices from top litigators
  • What is involved in class administration: specifics you need to know
Lecture Topics [Total time 06:36:51]

Segments with an asterisk (*) are available only with the purchase of the entire program.

  • Opening Remarks* [00:09:18]
    Jayne A. Goldstein, Howard S. Suskin
  • Recent Developments in Class Action Litigation [01:41:06]
    Georgene M. Vairo
  • Recent Developments in Class Action Notice and Claims Administration [01:01:31]
    Lauren McGeever, Cameron R. Azari
  • Settlement and Mediation of Class Action Litigation [01:02:45]
    Hon. Michael H. Dolinger (Ret.)
  • Litigation Strategies for Class Action Practice [01:26:34]
    Joel S. Feldman, James Shah, Devi M. Rao, Kristen A. Johnson
  • Ethical issues in Class Action Litigation [01:15:37]
    David G. Keyko

The purchase price of this Web Program includes the following articles from the Course Handbook available online:

  • COMPLETE COURSE HANDBOOK
  • Recent Noteworthy Class Action Decisions (Substantive Outline) (March 2018)
    Howard S. Suskin, Michael T. Brody
  • Fairness in Class Action Litigation Act of 2017, 115 H.R. 985 (2017)
    Georgene M. Vairo
  • Corber v. Xanodyne Pharmaceuticals, Inc., 771 F.3d 1218 (9th Cir. 2014)
    Georgene M. Vairo
  • Dart Cherokee Basin Operating Co., LLC v. Owens, 135 S.Ct. 547 (U.S. 2014)
    Georgene M. Vairo
  • Gelboim v. Bank of America Corp., 135 S.Ct. 897 (U.S. 2015)
    Georgene M. Vairo
  • “Summary Judgments Blog, Mississippi ex rel. Hood v. Au Optronics: The Next Big CAFA Case or Another Punt?”, Loyola Law School
    Georgene M. Vairo
  • Is the Class Action Really Dead? Is That Good or Bad for Class Members?, Emory Law Journal, Vol. 64:477 (2014)
    Georgene M. Vairo
  • Georgene Vairo on Standard Fire Insurance Co. v. Knowles
    Georgene M. Vairo
  • Moore’s Federal Practice, the Complete CAFA: Analysis and Developments Under the Class Action Fairness Act of 2005 (2011)
    Georgene M. Vairo
  • Epiq Depth, Culture Class—Will the United Kingdom Open Its Doors to US-type Class Action Litigation?
    Lauren McGeever
  • Mediation (March 23, 2018)
    Michael H. Dolinger
  • Olivia Hoffman and Katie Rosoff, Jenner & Block LLP, The FAA and NLRA Go Head to Head in Epic Systems, Consumer Law Round-Up (January 29, 2018)
    Kelly M. Morrison
  • Kate T. Spelman, Jenner & Block LLP, For Whom Rule 23(f) Tolls, Consumer Law Round-Up (September 26, 2017)
    Kelly M. Morrison
  • Reena R. Bajowala, Jenner & Block LLP, Pop Quiz! An Inch, 3% or 10 Calories: Which One Is Material?, Consumer Law Round-Up (September 19, 2017)
    Kelly M. Morrison
  • Olivia Hoffman, Jenner & Block LLP, On Remand, Ninth Circuit in Spokeo Says Alleged FCRA Violation Is Enough, Consumer Law Round-Up (August 21, 2017)
    Kelly M. Morrison
  • Alexander M. Smith, Jenner & Block LLP, Eighth Circuit Reverses Sanctions for Re-Filing Putative Class Action in State Court, Consumer Law Round-Up (July 26, 2017)
    Kelly M. Morrison
  • Stephen L. Ascher, Thomas C. Newkirk, Howard S. Suskin, Jenner & Block LLP, Supreme Court Holds That Statute of Repose Imposes Absolute 3-Year Bar on Opt-Out Claims, Consumer Law Round-Up (July 5, 2017)
    Kelly M. Morrison
  • Sarah E. Weiner, Jenner & Block LLP, Seventh Circuit Holds That Defendants Cannot Use Deposits under Rule 67 to Moot Putative Class Actions, Consumer Law Round-Up (June 26, 2017)
    Kelly M. Morrison
  • Meenakshi Krishnan, Jenner & Block LLP, Supreme Court Issues Important Jurisdictional Ruling in Plavix Case, Consumer Law Round-Up (June 21, 2017)
    Kelly M. Morrison
  • Alexander M. Smith, Jenner & Block LLP, Supreme Court Holds That Voluntary Dismissal Does Not Permit Appellate Review of Class Certification Orders, Consumer Law Round-Up (June 13, 2017)
    Kelly M. Morrison
  • Class Action Ethics Issues (March 27, 2018)
    Andrew J. Kim, David G. Keyko

Presentation Material

  • Major Class Action Developments
    Georgene M. Vairo
  • Recent Developments in Class Action Notice and Claims Administration
    Cameron R. Azari, Lauren McGeever
  • Class Actions Ethics Issues 2018 - Avoiding Ethical Pitfalls
    David G. Keyko
Co-Chair(s)
Jayne A. Goldstein ~ Shepherd Finkelman Miller & Shah LLP
Howard S. Suskin ~ Jenner & Block LLP
Speaker(s)
Cameron R. Azari ~ Vice President, Epiq; Director, Hilsoft Notifications, Hilsoft Notifications/Epiq Systems
Joel S. Feldman ~ Sidley Austin LLP
Kristen A. Johnson ~ Hagens Berman Sobol Shapiro LLP
David G. Keyko ~ Pillsbury Winthrop Shaw Pittman LLP
Lauren McGeever ~ Director, Client Services, Epiq
Devi M. Rao ~ Jenner & Block LLP
James Shah ~ Shepherd Finkelman Miller & Shah LLC
Georgene M. Vairo ~ David P. Leonard Professor of Law Emerita , Loyola Law School
General credit information about this format appears below. For credit information specific to this program, please choose your jurisdiction(s) in the Credit Information box on the right-hand side of this page.

PLI’s live and on-demand webcasts are single-user license products intended for an individual registrant only. Credit will be issued only to the individual registered.


U.S. MCLE States

Alabama:  PLI’s on-demand web programs qualify as “online” credit. Attorneys are limited to 6 credits of online programs per reporting period.

Alaska:  All PLI products can fulfill Alaska’s CLE requirements. There is no limit to the number of credits an attorney can earn via PLI products.

Arizona:  PLI’s on-demand web programs qualify as “interactive CLE” credit. There is no limit to the number of credits an attorney can earn via interactive CLE programs.

Arkansas:  PLI’s on-demand web programs are not approved for Arkansas CLE credit.

California:  PLI’s on-demand web programs qualify as “participatory” credit. There is no limit to the number of credits an attorney can earn via participatory programs.

Colorado:  All PLI products can fulfill Colorado’s CLE requirements. There is no limit to the number of credits an attorney can earn via PLI products.

Connecticut: Effective January 1, 2017, all PLI products can fulfill Connecticut’s CLE requirements. There is no limit to the number of credits an attorney can earn via PLI products.

Delaware:  PLI’s on-demand web programs qualify as “eCLE” credit. Attorneys are limited to 12 credits of eCLE per reporting period, no more than 6 of which may be audio-only.

Florida:  All PLI products can fulfill Florida’s CLE requirements. There is no limit to the number of credits an attorney can earn via PLI products.

Georgia:  PLI’s on-demand web programs qualify as “in-house” credit. Attorneys are limited to 6 in-house credits per reporting period.

Hawaii:  All PLI products can fulfill Hawaii’s CLE requirements. There is no limit to the number of credits an attorney can earn via PLI products.

Idaho:  PLI’s on-demand web programs qualify as “self-study” credit. Attorneys are limited to 15 credits of self-study per reporting period.

Illinois:  All PLI products can fulfill Illinois' CLE requirements for experienced attorneys. There is no limit to the number of credits an attorney can earn via PLI products.

Indiana:  PLI’s on-demand web programs qualify as “distance education” credit. Attorneys are limited to 9 credits of distance education per reporting period.

Iowa:  PLI’s on-demand web programs qualify as “unmoderated” credit. Attorneys are limited to 6 credits of unmoderated programs per reporting period.

Kansas:  PLI’s on-demand web programs qualify as “prerecorded” credit. Attorneys are limited to 6 credits of prerecorded programs per reporting period.

Kentucky:  PLI’s on-demand web programs qualify as “non-live” credit. Attorneys are limited to 6 non-live credits per reporting period.

Louisiana:  PLI’s on-demand web programs qualify as “self-study” credit. Attorneys are limited to 4 credits of self-study per reporting period.

Maine:  PLI’s on-demand web programs qualify as “self-study” credit. Attorneys are limited to 5.5 credits of self-study per reporting period.

Minnesota:  PLI’s on-demand web programs qualify as “on-demand” credit. Attorneys are limited to 15 on-demand credits per reporting period.

Mississippi:  PLI’s on-demand web programs qualify as “distance learning” credit. Attorneys are limited to 6 credits of distance learning per reporting period.

Missouri:  PLI’s on-demand web programs qualify as “self-study” credit. Attorneys are limited to 6 credits of self-study per reporting period.

Montana:  PLI’s on-demand web programs qualify as “self-study” credit. Attorneys are limited to 5 credits of self-study per reporting period.

Nebraska:  PLI’s on-demand web programs qualify as “computer-based learning” credit. Attorneys are limited to 5 credits of computer-based learning per reporting period.

Nevada:  PLI’s on-demand web programs qualify as “self-study” credit. There is no limit to the number of credits an attorney can earn via self-study programs.

New Hampshire:  All PLI products can fulfill New Hampshire’s CLE requirements. There is no limit to the number of credits an attorney can earn via PLI products.

New Jersey:  PLI’s on-demand web programs qualify as “alternative verifiable learning formats” credit. Attorneys are limited to 12 credits of alternative verifiable learning formats per reporting period.

New Mexico:  PLI’s on-demand web programs qualify as “self-study” credit. Attorneys are limited to 4 credits of self-study per reporting period.

New York

Experienced Attorneys:  All PLI products can fulfill New York’s CLE requirements for experienced attorneys. There is no limit to the number of credits an attorney can earn via PLI products.

Newly Admitted Attorneys:  PLI’s transitional on-demand web programs can be used to fulfill the requirements for New York newly admitted attorneys. Only professional practice and law practice management credits may be earned via transitional on-demand web programs. Ethics and skills credits may not be earned via on-demand web programs.

North Carolina:  PLI’s on-demand web programs qualify as “online” credit. Attorneys are limited to 6 credits of online programs per reporting period.

North Dakota:  PLI’s on-demand web programs qualify as “self-study” credit. Attorneys are limited to 15 credits of self-study per reporting period.

Ohio:  PLI’s on-demand web programs qualify as “self-study” credit. Attorneys are limited to 12 credits of self-study per reporting period.

Oklahoma:  PLI’s on-demand web programs qualify as “online, on-demand” credit. Attorneys are limited to 6 credits of online, on-demand programs per reporting period.

Oregon:  All PLI products can fulfill Oregon’s CLE requirements. There is no limit to the number of credits an attorney can earn via PLI products.

Pennsylvania:  PLI’s on-demand web programs qualify as “distance learning” credit. Attorneys are limited to 6 credits of distance learning per reporting period.

Puerto Rico:  All PLI products can fulfill Puerto Rico’s CLE requirements. There is no limit to the number of credits an attorney can earn via PLI products.

Rhode Island:  PLI’s on-demand web programs qualify as “video replay” credit. Attorneys are limited to 6 video replay credits per reporting period.

South Carolina:  PLI’s on-demand web programs qualify as “alternatively delivered” credit. Attorneys are limited to 6 credits of alternatively delivered programs per reporting period.

Tennessee:  PLI’s on-demand web programs qualify as “distance learning” credit. Attorneys are limited to 8 credits of distance learning per reporting period.

Texas:  All PLI products can fulfill Texas’ CLE requirements. There is no limit to the number of credits an attorney can earn via PLI products.

Utah:  PLI’s on-demand web programs qualify as “self-study” credit. Attorneys are limited to 12 credits of self-study per reporting period.

Vermont:  PLI’s on-demand web programs qualify as “self-study” credit. Attorneys are limited to 10 credits of self-study per reporting period.

Virgin Islands:  All PLI products can fulfill the Virgin Islands’ CLE requirements. There is no limit to the number of credits an attorney can earn via PLI products.

Virginia:  PLI’s on-demand web programs qualify as “pre-recorded” credit. Attorneys are limited to 8 credits of pre-recorded programs per reporting period.

Washington:  All PLI products can fulfill Washington’s CLE requirements. There is no limit to the number of credits an attorney can earn via PLI products.

West Virginia:  PLI’s on-demand web programs qualify as “online” credit. Attorneys are limited to 12 credits of online instruction per reporting period.

Wisconsin:  PLI’s on-demand web programs qualify as “repeated, on-demand” credit. Attorneys are limited to 15 credits of repeated, on-demand programs per reporting period. No ethics credits can be earned via on-demand web programs.

Wyoming:  PLI’s on-demand web programs qualify as “self-study” credit. Attorneys are limited to 6 credits of self-study per reporting period.


CPD Jurisdictions

British Columbia (CPD-BC):  PLI’s on-demand web programs are not eligible for CPD-BC credit unless viewed with at least one other attorney or an articled student. In this case, the credit must be recorded as a “study group.”

Ontario (CPD-ON):  PLI’s on-demand web programs qualify as “recorded” credit. If viewed without a colleague, attorneys are limited to 6 credits of recorded programs per year. If viewed with at least one colleague, there is no limit to the number of credits that can be earned via recorded programs.

Quebec (CPD-QC):  PLI’s on-demand web programs can fulfill Quebec’s CPD requirements.

Hong Kong (CPD-HK):  PLI’s on-demand web programs are not approved for CPD-HK credit.

United Kingdom (CPD-UK):  PLI’s on-demand web programs can fulfill the United Kingdom’s CPD requirements.

Australia (CPD-AUS):  PLI’s on-demand web programs may fulfill Australia’s CPD requirements. Credit limits for on-demand web programs vary according to jurisdiction. Please refer to your jurisdiction’s CPD information page for specifics.

Alberta (CPD-ALBERTA):  All PLI products can fulfill Alberta’s CPD requirements. There is no limit to the number of credits an attorney can earn via PLI products.

Dubai (CLPD-DUBAI):  PLI’s on-demand web programs may fulfill CLPD credit requirements.


Other Credit Types

CPE Credit (NASBA):  Select on-demand web programs qualify as the “QAS Self-Study” delivery method. Please check the Credit Information box on the right-hand side of this page to verify CPE credit availability.

IRS Continuing Education (IRS-CE):  PLI’s on-demand web programs may fulfill IRS-CE requirements. To request IRS-CE credit, please notify PLI at plicredits@pli.edu of your request and include your Preparer Tax Identification Number (PTIN).

Certified Fraud Examiner CPE:  PLI’s on-demand web programs may fulfill Certified Fraud Examiner CPE requirements. To request CPE credit or find out which programs offer CPE, please contact PLI at plicredits@pli.edu.

IAPP Continuing Privacy Credit (CPE):  PLI’s on-demand web programs may fulfill Privacy CPE credit requirements.

HR Recertification (HRCI):  PLI’s on-demand web programs may fulfill HR credit requirements.

SHRM Recertification (SHRM):  PLI’s on-demand web programs qualify as "self-paced" credit. SHRM professionals are limited to 30 credits of self-paced programs per recertification period.

Compliance Certification Board (CCB):  PLI’s on-demand web programs qualify as “self-study” credit. Candidates are limited to 10 self-study credits per 12-month period, and certification holders are limited to 20 self-study credits per 2-year renewal period.

Certified Anti-Money Laundering Specialists Certification (CAMS):  PLI’s on-demand web programs are not approved for CAMS credit.

New York State Social Worker Continuing Education (SW CPE):  PLI’s on-demand web programs are not approved for SW CPE credit.

American Bankers Association Professional Certification (ABA):  PLI’s on-demand web programs may fulfill ABA credit requirements.

Certified Financial Planners (CFP):  PLI’s on-demand web programs are not approved for CFP credit.

 

Related Items

Live Programs  Live Programs

Class Action Litigation 2019 (New York, NY) Jun. 3, 2019

Handbook  Course Handbook Archive

Class Action Litigation 2018 Howard S. Suskin, Jenner & Block LLP
Jayne A. Goldstein, Shepherd Finkelman Miller & Shah LLP
 
Share
Email

  • FOLLOW PLI:
  • twitter
  • LinkedIn
  • YouTube
  • RSS

All Contents Copyright © 1996-2018 Practising Law Institute. Continuing Legal Education since 1933.

© 2018 PLI PRACTISING LAW INSTITUTE. All rights reserved. The PLI logo is a service mark of PLI.