In Trauernicht v. Genworth Financial, Inc., 169 F.4th 459 (4th Cir. 2026), the Fourth Circuit delivered a significant win for defendants facing ERISA class actions. Reversing a district court’s certification order, the court held that claims under ERISA § 502(a)(2) seeking monetary relief for alleged fiduciary breaches in a defined contribution plan cannot be certified as a mandatory class under Rule 23(b)(1). The court also rejected the notion that ERISA fiduciary-duty claims “inherently” satisfy Rule 23’s commonality requirement.
Continue Reading One Plan, Many Accounts: Fourth Circuit Slams the Door on Mandatory ERISA Classes in Defined Contribution Cases
Overpayment Claims Don’t Always Fly: The Fifth Circuit on Article III Standing
Plaintiffs in consumer class action lawsuits often assert a theory of harm based on an alleged overpayment. The typical claim is that a plaintiff bought a good or service that had some alleged defect or was subject to some misrepresentation, and that they therefore paid more than they would have absent the defect or misrepresentation. While that may be enough to establish Article III standing in some cases, the Fifth Circuit recently reaffirmed that the theory has limits.
Continue Reading Overpayment Claims Don’t Always Fly: The Fifth Circuit on Article III StandingFourth Circuit Announces Legal Framework for Pre-Discovery Motions to Deny Class Certification
Although an uncommon step, defendants in putative class actions in some jurisdictions may move to deny class certification before discovery begins if the complaint’s proposed class is facially deficient. A successful motion forces plaintiffs to proceed individually, reducing a defendant’s exposure and eliminating costly discovery into issues of class certification. But district courts have yet to apply a consistent legal framework to those motions.
In Oliver v. Navy Fed. Credit Union, — F.4th —-, 2026 WL 346144 (4th Cir. Feb. 9, 2026), the Fourth Circuit provided such a framework, holding that “‘the appropriate procedure for a defendant to challenge class certification’—at the pleading stage or any other time—is to make ‘a motion to deny class certification under 23(c)(1)(A), coupled with a motion to strike under 23(d)(1)(D) should the motion to deny class certification be granted.’”.
Continue Reading Fourth Circuit Announces Legal Framework for Pre-Discovery Motions to Deny Class CertificationNinth Circuit Holds that Unexecuted Damages Model is Sufficient for Class Certification
In a recent decision, the Ninth Circuit concluded that a damages model that had been developed, but not actually applied to the underlying data, sufficiently showed that damages were susceptible to common proof for purposes of class certification.
The case, Lytle v. Nutramax Lab’ys, Inc., — F.4th— 2024 WL 1710663 (9th Cir. Apr. 22, 2024) concerns allegations that the defendants misled purchasers of their dog supplement—marketed as improving dogs’ joints and mobility—when allegedly no such benefits exist. To support class certification, the plaintiffs put forward an expert who had created a conjoint survey that they claimed could calculate damages on a class-wide basis. However, the plaintiffs conceded that the expert had not yet applied his analysis, relying instead on the expert’s prediction that his analysis could successfully measure the damages suffered by the class.
Continue Reading Ninth Circuit Holds that Unexecuted Damages Model is Sufficient for Class Certification