Class Action Procedure

In Wertymer v. Walmart, Inc., — F.4th —-, 2025 WL 1802402 (7th Cir. July 1, 2025), the Seventh Circuit affirmed the district court’s decision to dismiss a consumer class action which was based on speculative and contradictory assertions that a product marketed as “raw honey” was not actually raw.Continue Reading Seventh Circuit Affirms Dismissal of Suit Based on “Raw Honey” Labeling

Plaintiffs in Kurtz v. Kimberly-Clark Corporation, — F.4th —-, 2025 WL 1802667 (2d. Cir. 2025), asserted false advertising claims against a manufacturer of flushable wipes, alleging that they paid a price premium based on the representation that the wipes were “flushable” when they in fact allegedly caused plumbing damage. 

The district court granted preliminary approval for a “claims made” settlement for up to $20 million in compensation to the class.  At the claim filing deadline, only $1 million had been claimed.  After fairness hearings, the district court approved the class settlement and later approved $3.1 million in attorneys’ fees for class counsel.  A class member objected to the settlement, arguing that a disproportionate amount of the total recovery went to class counsel instead of the class.Continue Reading Second Circuit Clarifies Analysis of Attorneys’ Fees in Class Action Settlement

In Speerly v. General Motors, LLC, — F.4th —-, 2025 WL 1775640 (6th Cir. June 27, 2025) (en banc), the Sixth Circuit made it harder for plaintiffs to certify a class with multiple state-law causes of action and multiple subclasses when it vacated a district court order certifying multiple state-specific subclasses of automotive purchasers.Continue Reading En Banc Sixth Circuit Criticizes Certification of Multi-State Class

In Trump v. Casa, Inc., et al., No. 24A884, 606 U.S. ___ (2025), the Supreme Court ruled that lower courts lack authority to issue so-called “universal” (or “nationwide”) injunctions that extend beyond the case or controversy presented by the specific parties who are before them. In so doing, the Court will propel many litigants challenging federal statutes and policies to opt for Rule 23(b)(2) class actions in order to secure broad injunctive relief.Continue Reading End of Universal Injunctions, Re-Emergence of Rule 23(b)(2) Class Actions

In a decision with implications for classwide settlement of privacy lawsuits, Magistrate Judge Joseph C. Spero of the Northern District of California held that claims under the Video Privacy Protection Act (VPPA) are personal to individual class members and therefore not assignable to third parties.  The decision, Stark v. Patreon, Inc., No. 22-cv-03131-JCS (N.D. Cal. June 5, 2025), invalidated a mass opt-out effort orchestrated by Lexclaim Recovery Group US LLC (“Lexclaim”), a third-party entity that claimed it was founded to “help people recover a greater share of the money to which they would be entitled in class action cases.”Continue Reading California Federal Court Holds VPPA Claims Are Not Assignable, Rejecting Third-Party Opt-Out Scheme

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

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

Last month, a California federal court highlighted one of the “serious problems that the class action plaintiffs’ bar desperately needs to rectify”: “the failure to properly vet named plaintiffs.”  Lineberry v. Addshoppers, Inc., 23-cv-01996-VC, 2025 WL 1533136 (N.D. Cal. May 29, 2025).Continue Reading For Peet’s Sake!  Court Calls Out Class Action Plaintiffs’ Bar’s Failure to Properly Vet Named Plaintiffs in CIPA Suit

Food mislabeling class actions are increasingly common.  Last week, the Northern District of California denied a motion for class certification involving allegations of false labeling on ghee, a clarified butter product, because the plaintiff failed to produce evidence  

Defendant Ancient Organics, a ghee manufacturer, made representations on its packaging…

Continue Reading Ghee, I Can’t Believe I Need Evidence: N.D. Cal. Denies Class Certification in Food Labeling Case

On April 17, 2025, the Supreme Court issued its opinion in Cunningham v. Cornell University, No. 23-1007, 604 U.S. ___ (2025), a case addressing the pleading standard for prohibited-transaction claims under § 406(a) of the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974 (ERISA).  Section 406(a) proscribes certain transactions between plans and “parties in interest” absent a statutory exemption enumerated under ERISA § 408.  The core question on appeal was whether plaintiffs must allege, as an element of a prohibited-transaction claim under § 406(a), that an exemption under § 408 does not render the challenged transaction lawful.

In a decision that is expected to have wide-ranging implications, the Court held that exemptions under § 408 provide affirmative defenses to liability under § 406(a).  Consequently, plaintiffs need not allege that any of the exemptions set forth in § 408 are unavailable to state a plausible claim for relief.  Rather, the burden falls on plan fiduciary defendants to plead and prove that an exemption under § 408 nullifies a plaintiff’s claim.Continue Reading A Closer Look:  Supreme Court Rejects Heightened Pleading Standard for Prohibited-Transaction Claims under ERISA § 406(a)