Class Actions Brief Blog

Earlier this month, the Supreme Court declined to hear an appeal from the Ninth Circuit’s decision in Lytle v. Nutramax Laboratories Inc. affirming the certification of a class of owners of elderly dogs, alleging that the Cosequin supplement sold for canine joint health and mobility has no such benefit. That decision threatens to turn the circuit split over the standard for expert opinion at class certification into a major rift by permitting plaintiffs in the Ninth Circuit to rely on an expert model for which the expert “has not collected all of the necessary data to perform his ...

Two Missouri pets—and what’s in their prescription food—may ultimately determine where and how class actions are litigated. Earlier this month, the U.S. Supreme Court held oral argument in Royal Canin U.S.A. Inc. v. Wullschleger, where the central question is whether putative class action plaintiffs who have had their cases removed to federal court can amend their complaints to strip references to federal jurisdiction and return to state court.

Royal Canin began in 2019, when the owners of a dog named Carter and a cat named Sassie filed a proposed class action in Missouri ...

When a class action lawsuit ends, class counsel typically seek a fee award. Under Rule 23(h), the district court must make findings of facts and conclusions of law to support an award of “reasonable attorney’s fees and nontaxable costs” to the class counsel. Fed. R. Civ. P. 23(h). In calculating these fees, courts generally use one of two different methods: (1) the “lodestar” method; or (2) the “percentage of fund” method.

1. Lodestar Method. Under the “lodestar” method, the district court identifies a lodestar figure by multiplying the number of hours expended by ...

Under the American Pipe doctrine, the commencement of a class action tolls the statute of limitations for absent class members. American Pipe & Construction Co. v. Utah, 414 U.S. 538, 554 (1974). The intent of this rule is to protect the interests of class members and preserve the efficiencies of class litigation. Without tolling, absent class members would need to intervene or file individual claims to preserve their rights if the court denies class certification. See Crown, Cork & Seal Co. v. Parker, 462 U.S. 345, 350 (1983). We have discussed American Pipe tolling on the blog before ...

In general, a litigant cannot sue for another person’s injury. In that circumstance, the litigant has no “standing” to pursue those claims. But Rule 23 — at least in a broad sense — allows a class representative to assert claims for her own injuries and for the injuries experienced by others, at least if the class representative’s claim is “typical” and there are “common questions” at issue.

Analytically, these are different concepts. Standing, at least in federal courts, relates to a court’s constitutional jurisdiction, is most often determined at the ...