This blog previously covered the Eleventh Circuit’s July 2022 decision in Drazen v. Pinto, which held that all class members must have Article III standing in order to receive individual damages in a class settlement. 41 F.4th 1354 (11th Cir. 2022). Because the law in the Eleventh Circuit at the time held that a
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.
In a decision that will likely have ramifications for lenders and borrowers in the state, the Michigan Supreme Court recently issued a decision clarifying that lenders cannot rely on a “usury savings clause” to circumvent Michigan’s usury statute. But it also held that a lender’s effort to enforce a usurious loan, by itself, is not enough to trigger criminal liability.Continue Reading Michigan Supreme Court Refuses to Enforce “Usury Savings Clause”
Pennsylvania law requires foreign corporations to register to do business in the Commonwealth and provides that all registrants are subject to suit on “any cause” in the Commonwealth’s courts, regardless of a connection to the jurisdiction. In a split decision, the Supreme Court reversed a Pennsylvania Supreme Court decision finding that this general jurisdiction provision violated the Due Process Clause. Mallory v. Norfolk So. Railway Co., 600 U.S. __ (2023) (slip op. available here).Continue Reading Split Supreme Court Weighs in on Corporate Consent to Personal Jurisdiction
The Supreme Court, in a 5–4 ruling, has resolved a circuit split on the issue of litigation stays pending appeal of denials of motions to compel arbitration. In the underlying putative class action, Bielski et al v. Coinbase, Inc., 3:21-cv-07478 (N.D. Cal.), Coinbase moved to compel arbitration of the plaintiffs’ claims, but the motion was denied by the district court. The Ninth Circuit—in a split from several other Circuits—declined to stay the district court proceedings while the appeal was pending. The Supreme Court now has ruled that a district court must stay proceedings while an interlocutory appeal on the question of arbitrability is ongoing. The decision means that defendants should be able to minimize ongoing litigation costs while an appeal of an adverse arbitration decision is pending.Continue Reading Supreme Court Resolves Circuit Split to Require Stays Pending Appeal of Refusals to Compel Arbitration
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