Class Action Procedure

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

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

Last month, a California federal court in Dai v. SAS Institute, No. 4:24-cv-02537 (N.D. Cal. 2025), dismissed a proposed antitrust class action complaint against six nationwide hotel operators alleging that the hotels’ common use of revenue management software to set their room prices amounted to a per se illegal “hub-and-spoke” conspiracy to fix hotel prices in violation of Section 1 of the Sherman Act. Continue Reading California Court Dismisses Hotel Algorithmic Price Fixing Claims

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 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

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)

An Illinois federal court recently rejected efforts to bring a consumer class action against the parent company of Fiji brand water over allegations that its plastic water bottles contained microplastics.  In doing so, the court added its voice to the growing body of case law about microplastics and offered a window into how to attack similar types of contamination allegations.

In Daly et al. v. The Wonderful Company, LLC, 2025 WL 672913 (N.D. Ill. Mar. 3, 2025) plaintiffs alleged that Fiji’s claim that its water is “natural artesian water” are deceptive because the product bottles contain microplastics.  Id. at *1.  Plaintiffs brought claims under five state consumer protection laws and sought to represent a class of consumers allegedly harmed by microplastics in the bottles.  Id.  The company moved to dismiss the complaint, arguing (among other things) that plaintiffs had not plausibly alleged that the Fiji Water bottles actually contained microplastics and that plaintiffs lacked standing to pursue injunctive relief.  Id. at *2, *6.  Because plaintiffs failed to allege that the water bottles contained microplastics, TWG argued that they could not identify any deceptive statement giving rise to their claims.  Id. at *6.    

On March 3, the court agreed and dismissed plaintiffs’ complaint for two reasons.Continue Reading Illinois Federal Court Rejects Fiji Water Microplastics Case

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