The Sixth Circuit recently vacated a class certification order in a decision that may make it easier for defendants to defeat putative class actions where a named plaintiff asserts standing based on the injuries of absent class members.  Under the “juridical link doctrine,” a named plaintiff may bring a class action against defendants who did not injure them so long as the absent members of the proposed class would have standing to sue those defendants.  In vacating a district court order that certified a class based on this doctrine, the Sixth Circuit joined the Second Circuit in rejecting the doctrine and holding that named plaintiffs in a putative class action must have standing to sue every defendant at the time of filing.

In Fox v. Saginaw County, a Michigan landowner alleged that a county government violated both the U.S. and Michigan Constitutions when it foreclosed on his property for failure to pay property tax and retained proceeds of the sale in excess of the amount owed.  2023 WL 3143922, at *1 (6th Cir. Apr. 28, 2023).  He filed a putative class action on behalf of property owners in that county and 26 other Michigan counties that allegedly kept surplus proceeds from tax foreclosure sales.  Id.

The trial court certified a class of landowners across all 27 counties, even though only one of the counties was alleged to have injured the named plaintiff.  Id. at 3.  In doing so, the trial court relied on the juridical link doctrine, which creates an “exception[] to the ordinary standing rule . . . [when] all defendants are juridically related in a manner that suggests a single resolution of the dispute would be expeditious.”  Fox v. Cnty. of Saginaw, 2020 WL 6118487, at *5 (E.D. Mich. Oct. 16, 2020), vacated and remanded sub nom. Fox, 2023 WL 3143922.  The doctrine has been adopted by the Seventh Circuit, but rejected by the Second Circuit.  Fox, 2023 WL 3143922, at *6 (citing Payton v. Cnty. of Kane, 308 F.3d 673, 678-82 (7th Cir. 2002) and Mahon v. Ticor Title Ins. Co., 683 F.3d 59, 63-66 (2d Cir. 2012)).

The district court reasoned that by adopting a uniform policy to retain excess proceeds from tax foreclosure sales, the Michigan counties “bec[a]me so juridically linked to one another that Plaintiff has standing against each of them to the same extent that he has standing against” the county that seized his property.  Fox, 2020 WL 6118487, at *6.  The court then found that the proposed class satisfied each of Rule 23’s requirements.  Id. at 7-11.

The Sixth Circuit disagreed.  In vacating the district court’s decision, the Sixth Circuit held that the juridical link doctrine conflicts with Supreme Court precedent on standing in three ways.  Fox, 2023 WL 3143922, at *6.  First, a named plaintiff seeking to represent a putative class must allege an injury that they personally incurred, and cannot “piggyback off the injuries suffered by other, unidentified members of the class.”  Id.  Thus, the named plaintiff in Fox could not “rely on the claim that the other Counties harmed the members of the class that he seeks to represent” to establish standing.  Id.

Second, the Sixth Circuit found the juridical link doctrine to be at odds with the requirement that plaintiffs have standing “at the outset of the litigation” in order for a court to retain subject matter jurisdiction.  Id. at 7.  By “allow[ing] a class certification decision to create standing against defendants that did not injure the named plaintiff[,]” the doctrine impermissibly “changes the time when standing matters” from the filing of the suit to the class certification decision.  Id.

Third, the Sixth Circuit ruled that the juridical link doctrine—which was based on dicta from a Ninth Circuit opinion about streamlining class action litigation—could not overcome the Supreme Court’s instruction that standing is the “irreducible constitutional minimum” to assert a claim in federal court.  Id. (citing La Mar v. H & B Novelty & Loan Co., 489 F.2d 461, 466 (9th Cir. 1973) and Lujan v. Defs. of Wildlife, 504 U.S. 555, 560 (1992)).  Because the juridical link doctrine conflicted with the Supreme Court’s standing jurisprudence and lacked historical support, the Sixth Circuit held that the plaintiff did not have standing to represent the putative class and vacated the class certification order.  Id. at 13.  The Sixth Circuit then remanded the case to the district court for further proceedings.  Id.

The Sixth Circuit’s ruling confirms that standing is a threshold inquiry that precedes class certification, and that a named plaintiff must allege injuries from each and every defendant at the outset in order to establish standing.

Print:
Email this postTweet this postLike this postShare this post on LinkedIn
Photo of Raymond Lu Raymond Lu

Raymond Lu is a litigator who handles a wide range of complex commercial disputes and class actions in federal and state courts. He represents clients in the technology, financial, and pharmaceutical industries, among others, and maintains an active pro bono practice.

Photo of Andrew Soukup Andrew Soukup

Andrew Soukup is a co-chair of the firm’s Class Action Litigation Practice Group. Andrew specializes in representing heavily regulated businesses in class actions, multidistrict litigation, and other high-stakes disputes. Recognized for achieving “big wins in his class action practice,” Andrew has defeated a variety…

Andrew Soukup is a co-chair of the firm’s Class Action Litigation Practice Group. Andrew specializes in representing heavily regulated businesses in class actions, multidistrict litigation, and other high-stakes disputes. Recognized for achieving “big wins in his class action practice,” Andrew has defeated a variety of advertising, consumer protection, privacy, and product defect and safety claims ranging in exposure from millions to billions of dollars.

Andrew’s clients include those in the consumer products, life sciences, financial services, technology, automotive, and media and communications industries. He has helped his clients prevail in litigation in federal and state courts across the country against putative class representatives, government agencies, state attorneys general, and commercial entities.

With a long history of representing companies subject to extensive federal regulation and oversight, Andrew provides a unique ability to help courts understand the complex environment that governs clients’ businesses. Clients turn to Andrew because of his successful outcomes at all stages of litigation, his responsiveness and attention to their matters, his understanding of their businesses, and his creative strategies.

Andrew’s recent successes include:

  • Leading the successful defense of several of the world’s leading companies and brands from claims that they engaged in deceptive marketing or sold defective products, including claims brought under state consumer protection and unfair deceptive acts or practices statutes.
  • Delivering wins in multiple nationwide class actions on behalf of leading financial institutions related to fees, disclosures, and other banking practices, including the successful defense of numerous financial institutions accused of violating the Paycheck Protection Program’s implementing laws, which contributed to Covington’s recognition as a “Class Action Group of the Year.”
  • Helping one of the world’s largest seafood companies defeat ESG-related claims accusing the company of misrepresenting its environmental-friendly production practices.

Andrew has also obtained favorable outcomes for numerous clients in commercial and indemnification disputes raising contract, fraud, and other business tort claims. He helps companies navigate contractual and indemnification disputes with their business partners. And he advises companies on their arbitration agreements, and has helped numerous clients avoid multi-district and class-action litigation by successfully enforcing their arbitration agreements.

Watch: Andrew provides insights on class action litigation, as part of our Navigating Class Actions video series.

 
Photo of Sonya Winner Sonya Winner

A litigator with three decades of experience, Sonya Winner handles high-stakes civil cases for clients in a wide range of industries, including banking, pharmaceuticals and professional sports.  She has handled numerous antitrust and consumer disputes, many of them class actions, in state and…

A litigator with three decades of experience, Sonya Winner handles high-stakes civil cases for clients in a wide range of industries, including banking, pharmaceuticals and professional sports.  She has handled numerous antitrust and consumer disputes, many of them class actions, in state and federal courts across the country.

Sonya’s cases typically involve difficult technical issues and/or complex legal and regulatory schemes. She is regularly able to resolve cases before the trial phase, often through dispositive motions. But when neither summary judgment nor a favorable settlement is an option, she has the confidence of her clients to take the case all the way through trial and on appeal. Her recent successes have included a cutting-edge decision rejecting a “true lender” challenge to National Bank Act preemption in a class action involving interest rates on student loans, as well as the outright dismissal of a putative antitrust claim against the National Football League and its member clubs asserting an unlawful conspiracy to fix cheerleader compensation. 

Sonya has been recognized as a leading trial lawyer by publications like Chambers and the Daily Journal. She is chair of the firm’s Class Action Litigation Practice Group.