Owning a product that might malfunction isn’t enough for Article III standing—the defect must actually manifest. That’s the message from Glasscock v. Sig Sauer, Inc., __ F.4th __, 2026 WL 2054200 (8th Cir. July 16, 2026), where the Eighth Circuit vacated class certification and dismissed the case after the named plaintiff admitted his firearm had never malfunctioned.
Continue Reading No Misfire, No Case: Eighth Circuit Decertifies Gun-Defect Class Action Over StandingClass Action Procedure
Non-Statistical Evidence in No-Poach Antitrust Litigation Not Enough to Certify Class, Says Illinois Court
By Brandon Gould & Madeleine Scherer on
In In re Outpatient Medical Center Employee Antitrust Litigation, 2026 WL 1678954,the Northern District of Illinois recently refused to certify a proposed class of healthcare employees who alleged that their employers entered into a “no-poach agreement” that prohibited them from recruiting each other’s senior-level personnel and thereby suppressed compensation for all employees with similar qualifications. After excluding the plaintiffs’ expert’s statistical analysis of employee compensation under Rule 702, the Court determined that plaintiffs’ remaining non-statistical evidence did not show common proof of classwide antitrust impact.
Continue Reading Non-Statistical Evidence in No-Poach Antitrust Litigation Not Enough to Certify Class, Says Illinois CourtStand Aside: Third Circuit Throws Out Harriet Carter Gifts Federal Wiretapping Case On Standing Grounds
We have routinely highlighted the proliferation of wiretapping class actions, and the variety of approaches courts have taken to address them. One common pitfall for plaintiffs in these types of cases is standing, an issue highlighted in a recent Third Circuit case throwing out a proposed federal class action against Harriet Carter Gifts and NaviStone Inc., and remanding it to state court.
The case, Popa v. Harriet Carter Gifts, Inc., No. 25-1760 (3d. Cir. 2026), involved plaintiff’s allegations that Harriet Carter Gifts and NaviStone tracked her browsing activity on Harriet Carter’s website while she shopped for pet stairs, purportedly in violation of the Pennsylvania Wiretapping and Electronic Surveillance Control Act. After removal, the district court twice granted summary judgment for the defendants, and both decisions were appealed to the Third Circuit.
Continue Reading Stand Aside: Third Circuit Throws Out Harriet Carter Gifts Federal Wiretapping Case On Standing GroundsFederal Circuit Agrees with Majority View on Class Representative Incentive Awards
By Jeffrey Huberman on
We previously covered the Eleventh Circuit’s decision to deny rehearing in Johnson v. NPAS Solutions, LLC, 2022 WL 3083717 (11th Cir. Aug. 3, 2022), which had held that district courts may not approve incentive awards for class representatives in class action settlements. Since that time, we have also covered decisions from other courts (including the Seventh Circuit) which declined to follow the Eleventh Circuit, leaving that court standing alone in barring incentive awards. The Federal Circuit has now also declined to follow the Eleventh Circuit’s minority view.
Continue Reading Federal Circuit Agrees with Majority View on Class Representative Incentive AwardsNinth Circuit Partially Reverses Certification of Classes Challenging Ford Trucks’ Alleged Steering “Shimmy”
By Dominic Booth on
The Ninth Circuit partially reversed an order certifying multiple state‑law classes in litigation alleging that certain Ford Super Duty trucks suffer from a steering defect. See Lessin et al. v. Ford Motor Co., No. 25‑2211 (9th Cir. Feb. 11, 2026). While the Ninth Circuit affirmed parts of the class certification order, it held that the district court abused its discretion by certifying several classes without adequately evaluating whether plaintiffs could demonstrate the alleged defect with common evidence.
Continue Reading Ninth Circuit Partially Reverses Certification of Classes Challenging Ford Trucks’ Alleged Steering “Shimmy”New Federal Rule of Civil Procedure Provides Guidance for Early MDL Case Management
By Alyssa McGraw & Alexander Schultz on
Posted in Class Action Procedure, Litigation
The first Federal Rule focused specifically on multidistrict litigation—which has long been a staple of complex, high-stakes litigation—took effect on December 1, 2025, as part of the 2025 amendments to the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure.
Continue Reading New Federal Rule of Civil Procedure Provides Guidance for Early MDL Case ManagementEighth Circuit Ices False Labeling Class Action on Predominance Grounds
By Jonah Panikar on
An oft-litigated issue in false-advertising class actions is whether a plaintiff can show that each class member relied on the challenged statement when they made their purchasing decision. The Eighth Circuit recently offered an example of how this issue can pose a significant roadblock to class certification in In re…
Continue Reading Eighth Circuit Ices False Labeling Class Action on Predominance GroundsAggregate Damages Model, List Prices Insufficient to Demonstrate Classwide Antitrust Injury, Says Federal District Court
Last month in In re: Keurig Green Mountain Single-Serve Coffee Antitrust Litigation, the Southern District of New York denied certification to a proposed class of direct purchasers who alleged that Keurig, a manufacturer of branded coffee pods and brewers, violated antitrust laws by allegedly suppressing competition from generic coffee pod manufacturers. Although the plaintiffs offered statistical evidence suggesting that Keurig’s coffee pod prices were elevated on average, the court held that individual issues of antitrust impact predominated over common questions because Keurig directly negotiated prices with large buyers that might fully offset any increase in average prices.
Continue Reading Aggregate Damages Model, List Prices Insufficient to Demonstrate Classwide Antitrust Injury, Says Federal District CourtTenth Circuit Adopts Majority View not Requiring “Administrative Feasibility” for Ascertainability
By Connor Kennedy on
In Cline v. Sunoco, Inc. (R&M), 2025 WL 3199871 (10th Cir. Nov. 17, 2025), the Tenth Circuit adopted the majority view that “administrative feasibility” for identifying class members is not an independent requirement for certifying a class under Federal Rule 23. The ascertainability standard endorsed by the court requires…
Continue Reading Tenth Circuit Adopts Majority View not Requiring “Administrative Feasibility” for AscertainabilityFifth Circuit Clarifies No Cross-Jurisdictional Tolling in Texas
By Max Larson on
Posted in Class Action Procedure, Fifth Circuit
A recent Fifth Circuit decision, Ackerman v. Arkema Inc., reinforces that Texas law does not permit cross-jurisdictional tolling, and that federal courts in the Fifth Circuit will enforce that, notwithstanding federal tolling rules for class actions. Ackerman v. Arkema Inc., — F.4th —-, 2025 WL 3039221 (5th Cir. Oct. 31, 2025).
Following chemical explosions at Arkema’s Crosby, Texas facility in 2017, property owners filed a federal class action seeking injunctive and monetary relief. The district court certified a class for injunctive relief under Rule 23(b)(2) but declined to certify a damages class under Rule 23(b)(3). After the injunctive claims settled, nearly 800 class members filed individual suits in Texas state court seeking monetary damages. All were filed well outside the two-year limitations period under Texas law. The cases were then removed to federal court, and the defendant moved to dismiss on statute-of-limitations grounds.
Plaintiffs argued that the federal class action tolled the state limitations period under the rule established by the Supreme Court in American Pipe & Construction Co. v. Utah, 414 U.S. 538 (1974). Arkema responded that Texas does not recognize cross-jurisdictional tolling. The district court agreed, and the Fifth Circuit affirmed, citing two of its prior decisions. In Vaught v. Showa Denko K.K., 107 F.3d 1137 (5th Cir. 1997), the Fifth Circuit had first addressed whether Texas would adopt cross-jurisdictional tolling and concluded it would not, emphasizing that tolling rules applicable to claims brought under Texas law are grounded in state—not federal—law. Later, in Newby v. Enron Corp., 542 F.3d 463 (5th Cir. 2008), the Fifth Circuit reaffirmed that holding, rejecting arguments that tolling should apply when defendants had notice of claims or when property-related claims were involved. Both cases underscore that Texas courts have recognized tolling only for class actions filed in Texas state courts and that this rule remains binding for Texas state-law claims in federal court.
Judge Haynes dissented in part, arguing that the court should have certified the question to the Texas Supreme Court. The dissent highlighted practical concerns, noting that requiring individuals to file separate suits while a class action is pending undermines judicial efficiency and the purpose of class actions.
This decision confirms that, where state-law claims are at issue, American Pipe tolling will not override state law that does not recognize cross-jurisdictional tolling.
…
Continue Reading Fifth Circuit Clarifies No Cross-Jurisdictional Tolling in Texas