Rule 23

Numerous student athletes have filed putative class actions against the NCAA and its member institutions for injuries resulting from concussions sustained while playing college sports, some of which have been consolidated into an MDL.  The MDL court recently denied certification of several Rule 23(c)(4) issues classes based on the plaintiffs’ earlier waiver of the ability to seek certification of a 23(c)(4) class.  See In re NCAA Student-Athlete Concussion Injury Litigation—Single Sport/Single School (Football), 2024 WL 1242987 (N.D. Ill. March 22, 2024).Continue Reading Illinois Federal Court Denies Certification of Student-Athlete Issues Classes on Waiver Grounds

Rule 23(c)(4) states that, “[w]hen appropriate, an action may be brought or maintained as a class action with respect to particular issues.”  But do classes under Rule 23(c)(4), otherwise known as “issue classes,” also need to satisfy the requirements of Rule 23(a) and (b)?  In Harris v. Medical Transportation Management, Inc., 2023 WL 4567258 (D.C. Cir. July 18, 2023), the D.C. Circuit confirmed that the answer is “yes.” Continue Reading D.C. Circuit Confirms That Issue Classes Must Satisfy the Requirements of Rule 23(a) and (b)

The Sixth Circuit recently made it more difficult for plaintiffs to certify a class where individualized inquiries are needed to identify class members. 

In Tarrify Properties LLC v. Cuyahoga County Ohio, 2022 WL 2128816 (6th Cir. June 14, 2022), the Sixth Circuit addressed a claim that Ohio’s tax-foreclosure statute operates as a taking under the federal and Ohio constitutions.  The plaintiff in Tarrify owned delinquent property that was transferred to an authorized land bank, and plaintiff argued that the transfer—which prevented the owner of the delinquent property from recovering the difference between the value of the land and the tax liability—amounted to a taking.  Plaintiff sought certification of a class of owners in which “the total value of [their] property exceeded the amount of the impositions on that property at the time the transfer occurred.”  Id. at *2.  The district court denied plaintiff’s motion for class certification, plaintiff appealed, and the Sixth Circuit affirmed.Continue Reading Sixth Circuit Adds Teeth to Rule 23’s Ascertainability Requirement

A recent Ninth Circuit decision highlights the importance of considering whether a plaintiff’s failure to comply with a state-law pre-suit notice requirement can be used to quickly defeat a class action. The court rejected plaintiff’s argument that such pre-suit notice rules do not apply to putative class actions.Continue Reading Ninth Circuit Confirms State-Law Pre-Suit Notice Requirements Apply to Putative Class Representatives