Photo of Andrew Soukup

Andrew Soukup

Subscribe to Andrew Soukup's Posts

Andrew Soukup has a wide-ranging complex litigation practice representing highly regulated businesses in class actions and other high-stakes disputes. He has built a successful record of defending clients from consumer protection claims asserted in class-action lawsuits and other multistate proceedings, many of which were defeated through dispositive pre-trial motions.
Andrew is co-chair of the firm’s Class Action Litigation practice group.

Andrew has helped his clients achieve successful outcomes at all stages of litigation, including through trial and appeal. He has helped his clients prevail in litigation against putative class representatives, government agencies, and commercial entities. Representative victories include:

  • Delivered wins in multiple nationwide class actions on behalf of large financial companies related to fees, disclosures, and other banking practices, including the successful defense of numerous lenders accused of violating the Paycheck Protection Program’s implementing laws, which contributed to Covington’s recent recognition as a "Class Action Group Of The Year."
  • Successfully defending several of the nation’s leading financial institutions in a wide variety of litigation and arbitration proceedings involving alleged violations of RICO, FCRA, TILA, TCPA, FCBA, ECOA, EFTA, FACTA, and state consumer protection and unfair and deceptive acts or practices statutes, as well as claims involving breach of contract, fraud, unjust enrichment, and other torts.
  • Successfully defended several of the nation’s leading companies and brands from claims that they deceptively marketed their products, including claims brought under state consumer protection and unfair deceptive acts or practices statutes.
  • Obtained favorable outcomes for numerous clients in commercial disputes raising contract, fraud, and other business tort claims.

Because many of Andrew’s clients are subject to extensive federal regulation and oversight, Andrew has significant experience successfully invoking federal preemption to defeat litigation.

Andrew also advises clients on their arbitration agreements. He has successfully helped numerous clients avoid multi-district class-action litigation by successfully enforcing the institutions’ arbitration agreements.

Clients praise Andrew for his personal attention to their matters, his responsiveness, and his creative strategies. Based on his “big wins in his class action practice,” Law360 named Mr. Soukup a "Class Action Rising Star."

Prior to practicing law, Andrew worked as a journalist.

Contact: Read more about Andrew SoukupEmail

In a decision that could be useful to defendants in highly-regulated industries that face class action claims predicated on violations of federal law, a recent Sixth Circuit opinion confirmed that implied preemption applies to state-law claims predicated on violations of the EPA’s vehicle fuel economy and emissions regulations. This decision confirms the expansion of the implied preemption defense to a new industry, and may signal further expansions in the future. …

Continue Reading A Closer Look: Sixth Circuit Expands Implied Preemption Defense

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.…

Continue Reading Sixth Circuit Rejects Juridical Link Exception to Standing in Class Actions

In products and class action cases involving exposure to purportedly hazardous materials, plaintiffs often have trouble demonstrating concrete physical injuries, and in particular concrete physical injuries that would be common across a class.  To avoid dismissal and bolster class certification, those plaintiffs sometimes bring so-called “medical monitoring” claims, which seek recovery for the present-day costs…

Another court in the Eastern District of Michigan recently dismissed a putative class action on prudential mootness grounds, holding that the manufacturer’s voluntary recall program—which was supervised by a federal administrative agency—mooted the plaintiffs’ consumer fraud and warranty claims.  See Pacheco v. Ford Motor Co., 2023 WL 2603937 (E.D. Mich. Mar. 22, 2023).…

Continue Reading Michigan Federal Court Holds That Manufacturer’s Voluntary Recall Renders Plaintiffs’ Claims Prudentially Moot

            The Ninth Circuit continues its efforts to give teeth to the predominance requirement of Rule 23 as a potent tool for defendants to defeat class certification. 

            Earlier this year, in Bowerman v. Field Asset Services, Inc., 39 F.4th 652 (9th Cir. 2022), amended, — F.4th —-, 2023 WL 2001967 (9th Cir. Feb. 14, 2023), the Ninth Circuit determined that where individualized inquiries were necessary to determine the existence of damages—as opposed to the question of calculating damages—class certification was inappropriate because the class would fail to meet the predominance requirement of Rule 23. …

Continue Reading Ninth Circuit Sharpens Predominance Requirement:  Looking Behind Plaintiffs’ Fiction in Dismantling Class Certification

The Ninth Circuit recently held that a class could be certified with class members who lost less than a penny of interest.  But it also held that where some class members may have lost nothing at all, the district court must take a hard look at whether the predominance requirement has been met. …

Continue Reading Losing Less than a Penny Suffices for Standing for Class Certification, the Ninth Circuit Rules

In two putative class actions pending in the Eastern District of North Carolina, the Department of Justice has filed statements of interest urging the Court to deny defendants’ motions to compel arbitration of plaintiffs’ claims for violations of the Servicemembers Civil Relief Act.

In Padao v. American Express National Bank, No. 5:22-cv-00145-BO-RN (E.D.N.C.)…

A group of small businesses recently sued Bank of America in the Central District of California, alleging that it misled them about the terms of Paycheck Protection Program (PPP) loans. This marks yet another putative class action accusing lenders of misconduct in connection with the PPP.…

Continue Reading Lawsuit Accuses Bank of America of Misleading Companies About PPP Loans

A procedural violation of a state’s privacy statute is not alone enough to establish Article III standing—a plaintiff must suffer a concrete injury, such as an increased risk of identity theft.  The Fourth Circuit’s decision in O’Leary v. TrustedID, Inc., 2023 WL 2125996 (4th Cir. Feb. 21, 2023) confirms this—but also illustrates how Article III standing is a two-edged sword that may allow a plaintiff to defeat a defendant’s attempt to remove a case to federal court. 

The plaintiff in O’Leary filed a class action against TrustedID in South Carolina state court for allegedly violating South Carolina’s Financial Identity Fraud and Identity Theft Protection Act, S.C. Code Ann. § 37-20-180.  The statute prohibits requiring consumers to use six or more digits of their Social Security numbers to access a website without also requiring some other authentication measure.  The plaintiff alleged that TrustedID’s website required him to provide six digits of his Social Security number and did not have any other safety precautions, such as a password requirement.…

Continue Reading Fourth Circuit Remands Class Action to State Court After Plaintiff Questions His Own Standing

The Ninth Circuit recently held in Chamber of Commerce v. Bonta that the Federal Arbitration Act preempts a California law that criminalizes employer conduct that requires employees to consent to arbitrate claims arising under the California Fair Employment and Housing Act.  This ruling came after the same panel previously held that the law, Assembly Bill 51, was not preempted because it focused on “pre-agreement” behavior and not the arbitration agreement itself.  In 2021, the panel sua sponte decided to rehear the case, apparently after Judge Fletcher (who was in the majority in both decisions) changed his mind on the law’s validity.  In doing so, the panel eliminated a circuit split it had previously created between itself and the First and Fourth Circuits.…

Continue Reading Ninth Circuit Reverses Course on Arbitration