Skip to main contentSkip to navigation
Hamilton Law Firm LLC
Hamilton Law Firm LLC

913-647-7512
Legal Question?

Menu
  • Home
  • Firm Overview
  • Attorney Profile
  • Practice Areas
  • Why Choose Us
  • Representative Work
  • Legal News
  • Contact Us

Practice Areas

Business Litigation
Legal Malpractice
Local Counsel
Medical Malpractice
Nursing Home Abuse
Personal Injury
Product Liability
Wrongful Death

For More Information

Fill out our online form

Home » SCT Takes Wal-Mart And Global…

SCT Takes Wal-Mart And Global Warming

December 6th, 2010
Posted By
Patrick Hamilton
Tweet

DECEMBER 6, 2010 (Washington, DC) The U.S. Supreme Court on Monday agreed to hear arguments in two closely watched challenges, one involving the largest job bias class in history, and the other, global warming.

The justices directed the parties in Wal-Mart Stores v. Dukes to brief and argue two questions involving the certification of a class of about 1.5 million past and present female employees. And in American Electric Power Co. v. Connecticut, the justices will decide whether states and private parties are able to use the law of nuisance to sue five electric utilities for injunctive relief to cap their carbon dioxide emissions.

In the now nine-year-old Wal-Mart suit, six women, serving as class representatives, accuse the nation’s largest private employer of discriminating against female workers in pay and promotions.

The merits of the case, however, are not before the justices. Instead, the Court will focus on whether the class was properly certified.

“We welcome the Supreme Court’s limited review of the class certification decision in this case. As that decision was based on a vast body of evidence, we are confident that the decision to certify the class was sound,” said the plaintiffs’ lead co-counsel Joseph Sellers, partner in Washington’s Cohen Milstein Sellers & Toll, in a statement. “We believe the Court will reach the same decision after reviewing the record before the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California, where class certification was granted in June 2004.”

Wal-Mart has lost the class action issue four times in lower court rulings, noted Sellers.

Wal-Mart, represented by a team of lawyers from Gibson, Dunn & Crutcher, led by partner Theodore Boutrous, contends that the class was improperly certified, both as to its size and type. It argues that the plaintiffs, who are seeking back pay, were certified under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23(b)(2), used for classes seeking injunctive relief and, instead, should have been required to meet the tougher standards for classes seeking damages.

In the grant of review Monday, the justices ask the parties to address whether claims for money damages can be certified under 23(b)(2) as well as whether certification under that rule was consistent with the certification requirements of Rule 23(a).

In the global warming case, the justices rejected the recommendation of the solicitor general that they vacate a decision by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 2d Circuit and remand the case to that court to consider two questions: whether, independent of constitutional standing, the suit should be barred as a matter of “prudential” standing, and whether recent actions by the Environmental Protection Agency on greenhouse-gas regulations displace the claims in the lawsuit.

The utilities are represented by Peter Keisler of Sidley Austin. New York Solicitor General Barbara Underwood is counsel of record for the state attorneys general. Justice Sonia Sotomayor, who sat as a 2d Circuit panel judge in the global warming case, will not participate in the Court’s deliberations.

Categories: Legal News

Practice Areas

Business Litigation
Legal Malpractice
Local Counsel
Medical Malpractice
Nursing Home Abuse
Personal Injury
Product Liability
Wrongful Death

For More Information

Fill out our online form

Recent Blog Posts

18
Negligence Lawsuits: What the Plaintiff Must Prove
February 18th, 2021
Negligence occurs when a party fails to exercise proper care and, as a result, damages occur. Laws surrounding negligence and liability vary from state to state, so it’s important to contact a Kansas and Missouri injury attorney to represent your c… Read More
6
Legal Malpractice: What You Must Prove
February 6th, 2017
If you believe you were not represented properly by an attorney, a Kansas legal malpractice attorney can help determine if you may have a claim. As you can imagine, pursuing a claim against an attorney can be an uphill battle. Attorneys that may be p… Read More

Read more from our blog

Representative Work

$170,000 Jury Verdict in Negligent Misrepresenation Case
On April 24, 2018, attorney Patrick Hamilton obtained a $170,000 jury verdict in the United States District Court for the District of Kansas in a negligent misrepresentation case. Hamilton Law Firm’s client purchased a house in Kansas City, Missouri. Defendant Kathryn Sylvia was the seller’s real estate agent and an employee of defendant Platinum Realty. The sale was a “cash sale” in which payment was to be wired. The plaintiff received wiring instructions via email from Sylvia’s email account. Plaintiff forwarded the wiring instructions to his bank, which wired his money in accordance with the instructions. In actuality, the wiring instructions were prepared by a criminal hacker which caused plaintiff’s funds to be misdirected to Citi Bank in New York City. When the loss was discovered, plaintiff sued Sylvia and Platinum for negligent misrepresentation. The defendants claimed they did not email the wiring instructions to plaintiff and that plaintiff was comparatively negligent by not reviewing the wiring instructions before sending them to his bank. After a two day jury trial, the jury assigned defendants 85% of the fault and attributed 15% of the fault to plaintiff. Total damages were $196,622.67 with a net recovery to plaintiff of $167,129.27. Bain v. Platinum Realty LLC et al., Case No. 16-CV-02326-JWL. Read More
$280,000 Jury Verdict in Legal Malpractice Case (January 18, 2017)
On January 18, 2017, Hamilton Law Firm LLC obtained a $280,000.00 jury verdict in a legal malpractice lawsuit for Power Control Devices, Inc., an Olathe company specializing in the manufacture of electronic devices. The underlying litigation involved a breach of contract lawsuit against Orchid Engineering, Technologies and Consulting in the Boston, Massachusetts area. After PCD’s case had been pending for almost two years, Orchid filed a motion for summary judgment contending the lawsuit was not filed before the statutes of limitation expired. The United States District Court for the District of Massachusetts agreed, dismissing Power Control’s claims as untimely. Hamilton Law firm sued Power Control’s attorney in the underlying litigation, Michael “Mick” Lerner, for legal malpractice. After a seven day jury trial in Johnson County Kansas District Court, the jury returned a verdict in favor of Power Control. PCD Verdict Form 2617 Read More

Read more about our successes

Contact Us

Google Map of Hamilton Law Firm LLC’s Location
Hamilton Law Firm LLC
8700 Monrovia, Suite 310
Lenexa, KS 66215
913-647-7512

© 2025 Hamilton Law Firm LLC
View Our Disclaimer
Law Firm Website Design by The Modern Firm

Copyright © 2025 Hamilton Law Firm LLC