Class Action Procedure

In TransUnion LLC v. Ramirez, the Supreme Court held that “every class member must have Article III standing in order to recover individual damages.”  594 U.S. 413, 427, 431 (2021) (cleaned up).  Post-TransUnion, courts have grappled with that guidance, especially as to whether a class that contains uninjured class members may permissibly be certified.  As set forth in our recent post, the Supreme Court has granted certiorari in Laboratory Corporation of America Holdings v. Davis to address a circuit split on that issue.Continue Reading Fourth Circuit Concludes TransUnion Demands Evidence of Injury for All Class Members

A Pennsylvania court recently dismissed a wiretapping complaint filed against a trio of defendants for lack of Article III standing, lack of personal jurisdiction, and failure to state a claim in Ingrao v. Addshoppers, Inc., 2024 WL 4892514 (E.D. Pa. Nov. 25, 2024).

The two plaintiffs in this case…

Continue Reading Pennsylvania Court Dismisses A Trio of Defendants in Website Wiretapping Suit Challenging Email Marketing Program

Despite a lead plaintiff with unique injuries, the Northern District of Indiana recently certified a class seeking economic damages under Indiana’s consumer protection statute in a case challenging contaminated hand sanitizer manufactured by 4e Brands North America, LLC.  Callantine v. 4e Brands North America, LLC, 2024 WL 4903361 (N.D. Ind. Nov. 27, 2024). 

In June 2020, Defendant 4e voluntarily recalled all of its hand sanitizer lots due to the presence of methanol.  The plaintiff filed a class action lawsuit two months later, alleging that she had suffered both economic and personal injuries, and that she was entitled to statutory damages.  The individual class members’ damages, however, would be “largely limited to statutory damages.” Continue Reading Unique Injuries No Bar to Class Certification Pursuing Economic Damages

            An important issue in class action practice is how courts are to evaluate the reliability of expert evidence that purports to support class certification.  On November 22, the Sixth Circuit joined a majority of circuits in holding that a full Daubert analysis is required at the class certification stage where the expert evidence is material to class certification.

            In In re Nissan North Am., Inc. Litig., — F.4th —, 2024 WL 4864339 (6th Cir. Nov. 22, 2024), Nissan owners brought state law claims alleging various defects with automatic braking systems in Nissan vehicles.  The district court certified 10 statewide classes under Fed. R. Civ. P. 23(b)(3). Id. at *1. On interlocutory appeal, the Sixth Circuit reviewed three aspects of the district court’s certification decision:  (1) whether the case involved common questions of law or fact under Rule 23(a)(1); (2) whether common questions predominated over individual ones under Rule 23(b)(3); and (3) whether the court could rely on expert evidence without ensuring that it satisfied the Daubert standard. Id. at *3. While it found error in the district court’s determinations on each of these issues, this post focuses on the expert-related question.Continue Reading No Evading Daubert at Class Certification Stage, Sixth Circuit Rules

The First Circuit recently held as a matter of first impression that denial of class certification does not strip a federal court of jurisdiction under the Class Action Fairness Act (“CAFA”), consistent with earlier decisions from the Second, Third and Seventh Circuits.  The opinion also addressed two exceptions to CAFA—the “home state” and “local controversy” exceptions—ultimately finding that the latter did defeat CAFA jurisdiction in the case before it and required remand to state court.  See Kress Stores of Puerto Rico, Inc. v. Wal-Mart Puerto Rico, Inc., — F.4th —-, 2024 WL 4750774 (1st Cir. Nov. 12, 2024).Continue Reading First Circuit Agrees with Other Circuits that CAFA Jurisdiction Survives Class Certification Denial

On Wednesday, November 13, the Supreme Court heard oral argument in the case NVIDIA Corp. v. Ohman J, a class action suit filed in the Northern District of California alleging securities fraud under § 10(b) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and SEC Rule 10b-5.  Early signals from the Justices’ questions have led observers to believe that the Court may affirm the Ninth Circuit’s decision to reverse and remand the decision granting Nvidia’s motion to dismiss for failure to state a claim. Continue Reading Supreme Court Expresses Skepticism Regarding Nvidia’s Motion to Dismiss Securities Class Action

In certain circumstances and states, class action waivers may mitigate the exposure risks inherent in class action lawsuits. A decision from the Eastern District of New York illustrates some of the procedural challenges defendants may face in seeking to enforce a waiver at the outset of a case in some circumstances. See Berger v. JetBlue Airways Corp., 2024 WL 4107243, at *4 (E.D.N.Y. Sept. 6, 2024).Continue Reading New York Federal Court Declines to Find Class Claims Waived at Pleadings Stage

The Seventh Circuit has added its voice to a growing circuit split on Rule 23(c)(4) issue classes.  In Jacks v. DirecSat USA, LLC—a long-running class action alleging wage and hour violations by DirectSat satellite service technicians—that court weighed in on the scope of Rule 23(c)(4) and its interplay with Rule 23(b).  Jacks v. DirectSat USA, LLC, __ F.4th __, 2024 WL 4380256 (7th Cir. Oct. 3, 2024).             

Jacks had a lengthy procedural history.  After initially certifying a Rule 23(b)(3) class, the District Court decertified it following a 2013 Seventh Circuit decision.  Id. at *2.  Thereafter, the District Court certified “fifteen liability-related issues to proceed on a classwide basis under Rule 23(c)(4).”  Id.  Nearly four years later, the case was assigned to a new judge.  Id. at *3.  Three years after that, defendants moved to decertify the issue classes.  Id.  The new judge agreed, decertifying the issue classes because “defendants’ liability [could not] be determined on a classwide basis” and so the classes did not satisfy Rule 23(b)(3).  Id. Continue Reading What’s the Issue? Seventh Circuit Clarifies Scope of Rule 23(c)(4) Issue Classes

With the growing popularity in cryptocurrency investments, class actions related to crypto assets have soared.  These lawsuits raise a host of novel legal questions, including how established personal jurisdiction principles apply to crypto companies.  A Colorado federal court recently provided guidance on this question, dismissing a lawsuit involving crypto wallet Atomic Wallet for lack of personal jurisdiction.  See Meany v. Atomic Protocol Sys. OU, 2024 WL 4135762 (D. Colo. Sept. 10, 2024).Continue Reading A Closer Look: Court Applies Established Personal Jurisdiction Principles to Dismiss Crypto Wallet Companies In Class Action Filed After $100 Million North Korean Crypto Hack.

On August 6, 2024, Judge Jorge L. Alonso of the Northern District of Illinois issued an order dismissing Brantley v. Prisma Labs, Inc., a proposed class action suit against the creator of the “Magic Avatar” AI app for lack of standing and lack of personal jurisdiction over the representative plaintiff Tyrone Brantley.Continue Reading Judge Makes Class Action Claims Against “Magic Avatar” AI App Disappear