Sixth Circuit

In many privacy and other technology-related class actions, the question of whether consumers consent to the practice at issue is central.  In these cases, class action defendants have defeated motions for class certification by successfully arguing that consent is an individualized issue that is not susceptible to common proof.  And though class action plaintiffs may try and avoid this problem by excluding consenting individuals from their class definition, that solution can create new problems, including impermissible “fail-safe” classes—i.e., classes that cannot be defined until a case is resolved on the merits.Continue Reading Sixth Circuit Denies Permission to Appeal Class Certification Order Raising Questions of Consent and Fail-Safe Classes

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

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

In Ward v. J.M. Smucker Co, No. 24-3387, 2025 WL 2613489 (6th Cir. Sept. 10, 2025), the Sixth Circuit affirmed the district court’s decision to dismiss a putative consumer class action regarding allegedly contaminated peanut butter because Plaintiffs did not have standing to bring their claims.  Continue Reading Sixth Circuit Rejects Food Contamination Claims for Lack of Standing

The Sixth Circuit in In Re FirstEnergy Corp. Sec. Litig., No. 23-3940, 2025 WL 2331754 (6th Cir. Aug. 13, 2025) recently reversed and remanded the district court’s class certification ruling in a securities class action on two independent bases: (1) that the district court applied the wrong standard when…

Continue Reading Sixth Circuit Remands Class Certification Ruling Back to District Court to Conduct Rigorous Analysis Under Comcast

The Sixth Circuit recently reversed a denial of a motion to compel arbitration in an MDL, where the district court had raised the issue of waiver of arbitration rights on its own and ruled defendant had waived the right even when there was no evidence it had knowledge of the right.  In Re Chrysler Pacifica Fire Recall Products Liability Litigation, — F.4th —-, 2025 WL 1904525 (6th Cir. Jul. 10, 2025).Continue Reading Sixth Circuit Enforces Arbitration Agreement After Lower Court Sua Sponte Found Waiver

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

On June 20, 2025, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit resurrected a lawsuit against a bank involving “Authorized Positive, Settled Negative” (“APSN”) overdraft fees and nonsufficient funds (“NSF”) fees. Gardner v. Flagstar Bank, No. 24-1436, 2025 WL 1721191 (6th Cir. June 20, 2025). The plaintiff argued that these fees violated the operative Terms & Conditions. The district court had granted summary judgment to the defendant because the plaintiff’s deposition testimony indicated that she did not read the T&Cs and thus could not advance her own interpretation of the contract.Continue Reading Sixth Circuit Revives Overdraft Fee Lawsuit Based on Ambiguous Contractual Terms

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

            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