To the surprise of many observers (including us), the Supreme Court held last week in Home Depot USA Inc. v. George Jackson that a third-party defendant could not remove class action claims – under either the general removal statute, 28 U.S.C. § 1441(a), or the Class Action Fairness Act (CAFA), 28 U.S.C. §
Nick Danella concentrates his practice on high-stakes and appellate litigation throughout the federal and state court systems. In particular, he focuses on legal writing and strategy, motion practice and appeals.
Nick was named one of the “Top 40 under 40” by the Birmingham Business Journal, and was listed as a “Rising Star” in Appellate by Mid-South Super Lawyers.
Nick joined Bradley after several years of litigation experience at Skadden Arps in New York and Los Angeles. He also served as a law clerk on the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit and the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California.
In a 5-4 split decision, the U.S. Supreme Court appears to have reworked a longstanding precedent that has been a foundation of antitrust litigation for more than 40 years—the “direct purchaser” rule of Illinois Brick, which generally forecloses “downstream” purchasers from suing for alleged violations of the Sherman Act. Apple Inc. v. Pepper addressed…