In 2023, a train derailed in East Palestine, Ohio, sparking a class action lawsuit against the railway company and others involved in the derailment. In re: East Palestine Train Derailment, — F. 4th –, 2025 WL 3089606, at *1 (6th Cir. November 5, 2025). The class-action lawsuit concluded
Continue Reading High Price of Dissent: Court Upholds Substantial Bond on Objectors To The In Re: East Palestine Train Derailment Class Action Settlement
Valuation and Standing—The Sixth Circuit Creates a Class Action Split
In its recent decision in Clippinger v. State Farm, the Sixth Circuit addressed the certification of a class in a breach-of-contract dispute over insurance valuation claims, in which the defendant contended that individualized evidence would be needed to determine whether the alleged breach caused actual monetary injury to class members. Similar class certification issues have been addressed by several other circuits, including by the Ninth Circuit just last month. In its decision, however, the Sixth Circuit went its own way: (1) the court found that an alleged breach of contract was alone sufficient to create Article III standing, and (2) the court split from five other circuits in affirming certification of the class.Continue Reading Valuation and Standing—The Sixth Circuit Creates a Class Action Split
Fee-versal of Fortune
The Ninth Circuit in Maree v. Deutsche Lufthansa A.G., No. 23-55795, 2025 WL 2268254 (9th Cir. Aug. 8, 2025) recently vacated and remanded a district court’s approval of a class action settlement because it found class counsel’s fees likely represented a disproportionate amount of the settlement fund. The settlement at issue sought to resolve two class actions filed against Lufthansa based on an alleged failure to provide timely refunds to customers for cancelling flights during the COVID-19 pandemic.Continue Reading Fee-versal of Fortune
District Courts Must Address Conflicting Expert Evidence to Certify Antitrust Class Action, Seventh Circuit Rules
Expert evidence commonly plays an important role in class certification determinations. On August 5, the Seventh Circuit addressed this issue, holding that in a proposed antitrust class action, the district court erred in certifying a class when it failed to engage with conflicting expert evidence regarding antitrust impact that could have established lack of predominance.
The case, Arandell Corp. v. Xcel Energy Inc., — F.4th —, 2025 WL 2218111 (7th Cir. 2025) was a long-running natural gas price fixing case. Plaintiffs moved to certify a Rule 23(b)(3) class. They argued that common questions of law or fact predominated, including “whether the class paid higher prices for natural gas[.]” Id. at *4. Plaintiffs and defendants had competing experts on the predominance issue as it related to impact. Id. Continue Reading District Courts Must Address Conflicting Expert Evidence to Certify Antitrust Class Action, Seventh Circuit Rules
Ninth Circuit Affirms Class Certification Based on Unexecuted Damages Model
Extending its recent decision in Lytle v. Nutramax Laboratories, Inc., 114 F.4th 1011, 1032 (9th Cir. 2024), the Ninth Circuit recently affirmed class certification in a false advertising case based in part on an unexecuted and “not yet fully developed” damages model. The panel reasoned that the expert’s explanation of the damages model he proposed to (but had not yet) run established that the model “could reliably measure damages on a classwide basis and adequately for present purposes matched [plaintiff’s] theory of harm.” The panel also confirmed that in some cases, false advertising plaintiffs can benefit from an inference of classwide materiality and reliance under California law.Continue Reading Ninth Circuit Affirms Class Certification Based on Unexecuted Damages Model
Non-signatory Defendant Unable to Meet High Burden for Compelling Arbitration
The enforceability of an arbitration clause is often a hotly disputed issue in class action lawsuits. But may a party who is not a signatory to a contract invoke its arbitration provisions to compel the arbitration of claims brought by a party who is? The First Circuit recently held that a defendant was unable to meet the high burden to enforce an arbitration agreement based on a contract that it is not a party to in Morales-Posada v. Cultural Care, Inc., 2025 WL 1703513 (1st Cir. June 18, 2025).Continue Reading Non-signatory Defendant Unable to Meet High Burden for Compelling Arbitration
Fifth Circuit Reaffirms that Courts Must Provide Class-Wide Notice of Attorney Fee Motions
On June 10, 2025, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit ruled that courts must provide class-wide notice of an attorney fee motion under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23(h). Morrow v. Jones, No. 23-40546, 2025 WL 1634785 (5th Cir. June 10, 2025).Continue Reading Fifth Circuit Reaffirms that Courts Must Provide Class-Wide Notice of Attorney Fee Motions
Sixth Circuit Affirms Class Certification Despite Potential Presence of Class Members Who Did Not Suffer Economic Injury
Whether the presence of uninjured class members can defeat class certification is a hot-button topic in class action litigation. Just four days after the Supreme Court dismissed the appeal in Laboratory Corporation of America Holdings v. Davis regarding whether class certification is permissible under Rule 23(b)(3) when some members of the putative class are uninjured (we described this case here), the Sixth Circuit affirmed class certification in Pickett v. City of Cleveland, Ohio, despite defendant’s argument that up to twenty percent of the class did not suffer an economic injury. — F. 4th —-, 2025 WL 1622110 (6th Cir. June 9, 2025).
Continue Reading Sixth Circuit Affirms Class Certification Despite Potential Presence of Class Members Who Did Not Suffer Economic Injury
Ninth Circuit Shoots Down Fee Award in Data Breach Class Action
The Ninth Circuit recently reversed an $800,000 attorney fee award in a data breach class action because the award accounted for too large a portion of the total value of the settlement. In re California Pizza Kitchen Data Breach Litig., — F.4th —, 2025 WL 583419 (9th Cir. Feb. 24, 2025).Continue Reading Ninth Circuit Shoots Down Fee Award in Data Breach Class Action
No Final Judgment, No Attorneys’ Fees: The Supreme Court Clarifies the Meaning of “Prevailing Party” in Lackey v. Stinnie
In Lackey v. Stinnie, the Supreme Court has clarified who qualifies as a “prevailing party” eligible for attorneys’ fees under certain statutes. The decision carries significant implications for the availability of attorneys’ fees in class action cases where defendants are able to moot claims before a court enters a final judgment.
At issue in Lackey was whether plaintiffs could obtain attorneys’ fees under 42 U.S.C. §1988(b), which allows the “prevailing party” to recover attorneys’ fees in certain civil rights cases. Plaintiffs secured a preliminary injunction but were not able to obtain any further relief (including a final judgment) because the government voluntarily ceased the challenged conduct. In a 7-2 opinion authored by Chief Justice Roberts, the Supreme Court held that the plaintiff did not qualify as a “prevailing party.”Continue Reading No Final Judgment, No Attorneys’ Fees: The Supreme Court Clarifies the Meaning of “Prevailing Party” in Lackey v. Stinnie