Class Actions Brief Blog

This blog often focuses on traditional, opt-out class actions brought under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23, but there is another common form of mass action: collective actions under the Fair Labor Standards Act and the Age Discrimination in Employment Act. More than 5,000 collective action lawsuits are filed each year under the FLSA and ADEA, making those claims among the most popular forms of mass action and worthy of continued attention.

The FLSA and ADEA allow for aggregate litigation by providing that claims can be brought by employees on behalf of themselves and “other ...

In Labcorp v. Davis, the U.S. Supreme Court was poised to decide if a federal court can certify a class that includes members who lack any Article III injury.  But as we discussed last month, the oral argument suggested that a procedural snag would stop the Court from deciding that question.

Sure enough, the Court has now decided not to decide the class-action question in Labcorp.  In a one-sentence order issued yesterday, June 5, the Court dismissed its review of the case as improvidently granted.  That order leaves the Ninth Circuit decision in Labcorp intact and the legal issue that has ...

We’ve written previously about courts’ differing approaches to ascertainability — an implicit requirement under Rule 23 that class members must be identifiable. A pending petition for certiorari in Career Counseling Inc. v. Amerifactors Financial Group LLC, No. 24-86 (2024), asks the Supreme Court to resolve some of these differences.

The petition originates with a District of South Carolina order denying class certification in a Telephone Consumer Protection Act case. Career Counseling, a staffing services company, filed a putative class action for alleged TCPA ...

A few months ago, we wrote about the U.S. Supreme Court’s decision to grant review in Labcorp v. Davis.  As we noted at the time, Labcorp raises a long-debated question of class-action law:  Can a federal court certify a class that includes members who lack any Article III injury?  As we also noted, the Supreme Court was expected to answer this question almost a decade ago in Tyson Foods, Inc. v. Bouaphakeo, but ultimately did not resolve it.

The wait may go on.  The Supreme Court held oral argument in Labcorp on April 29.  After more than two hours of discussion, most of the Justices appeared to ...

On January 24, 2025, the United States Supreme Court agreed to answer a question that has divided the circuits: Can a federal court certify a class containing members who lack any Article III injury? In Davis v. Laboratory Corporation of America Holdings, a trial court in California certified a damages and injunctive relief class comprised of blind patients who—unliked sighted individuals—could not use LabCorp’s kiosks to access testing services. It did not matter to the trial court or to the Ninth Circuit that the class members had the option to bypass LabCorp’s kiosks ...

Our colleague Erik Zimmerman reported in an earlier post the memorable declaration from defense counsel in TransUnion LLC v. Ramirez, 594 U.S. 413 (2021): when a legal violation results in no harm, those involved should “break out the champagne,” not “break out a lawsuit.”

In TransUnion, decided in 2021, the Supreme Court grappled with a question that has vexed federal courts in recent years: how much leeway should plaintiffs have to bring federal suits based on “intangible harms”? Article III courts have been redressing obvious harms to person and pocketbook since the ...

As class action litigation under ERISA continues its upward trend across the country, could Article III standing serve as a means through which a Court can fairly assess claims before costly discovery is imposed on defendants and judicial resources are expended? Several recent federal court decisions suggest as much.

ERISA, which provides protection to employees who participate in employee benefit plans, confers statutory standing on plan participants and beneficiaries to seek relief against their benefit plans as well as fiduciaries of these plans in federal court. Although ...

At oral argument in TransUnion LLC v. Ramirez, TransUnion’s counsel told the U.S. Supreme Court that a lack of harm is a reason “to break out the champagne, not to break out a lawsuit.” The Court has now decided TransUnion, and its decision may make it harder for class-action plaintiffs to sue for non-traditional harms. As a result, class-action defendants may be inclined to pop a cork or two. The full implications of the decision remain to be seen, however, so the best course for now may be to keep the refreshments on ice.

TransUnion was a class action brought under a federal statute ...

This post concerns a recurring topic in class-action practice: how a party—through its own litigation conduct—can waive its right to arbitrate.

The topic warrants attention, or at least came to our attention, because of a recent decision from a federal appellate court. The case, called Morgan v. Sundance, Inc., is a putative nationwide collective action filed under the Fair Labor Standards Act.

The defendant (Sundance) owns Taco Bell franchises in multiple states. The plaintiff (Robyn Morgan) worked at a Sundance restaurant in Iowa. She has accused Sundance of not paying her ...

Last month, the Supreme Court denied certiorari in a case that would determine whether the Court’s 2017 decision in Bristol-Myers Squibb Co. v. Superior Court of California would extend to federal class actions.

In Bristol-Myers Squibb, the Supreme Court ruled that in mass tort actions, state courts do not have specific personal jurisdiction over claims by plaintiffs who were not injured in and do not live in the forum state. There, a national group of plaintiffs sued a New York and Delaware-based pharmaceutical company in California court, alleging the defendant’s drug ...

Last Wednesday, the Supreme Court held in Lamps Plus, Inc. v. Varela, No. 17-988 (April 24, 2019) that an ambiguous agreement cannot authorize class arbitration. The 5-4 decision split along ideological lines, with Chief Justice Roberts writing for the Court’s conservative majority. Per Roberts’ opinion, the Federal Arbitration Act (FAA) requires both parties to an arbitration agreement to give their full consent to authorize class arbitration, a “markedly different” process than traditional individualized arbitration. In its 2010 decision in Stolt-Nielsen v ...

Last year in this space, we reported on the continuing debate concerning the use of cy pres awards in class action settlements.  Since 2013, Chief Justice Roberts has provided cautionary comments about this practice.  See Marek v. Lane, 134 S. Ct. 8 (2013).  We also reported on the Ninth Circuit’s approval of a cy pres settlement in In Re Google Referrer Header Privacy Litigat., 869 F.3d 737 (9th Cir. 2017), which awarded plaintiffs’ counsel $3.5 million and six nonprofits/educational institutions another $5.3 million, all while awarding class members the proverbial goose egg.

After a lively oral argument interrupted eight times by laughter, a unanimous Supreme Court reached a serious holding in Nutraceutical Corp. v. Lambert, No. 17-1094 (Feb. 26, 2019): that Fed. R. Civ. P. 23(f)’s 14-day period for requesting permission to appeal class certification orders cannot be equitably tolled.

The class-action plaintiff in Lambert sued for an alleged violation of the California consumer protection law. Although the district court originally allowed the plaintiff to proceed on behalf of a class, the court later ordered the class decertified. The plaintiff ...

Updated 6-11-18: The Supreme Court’s decision earlier today in China Agritech confirms the validity of the observations in the original blog post below.  The Court held that American Pipe tolling does not apply to successive class actions.

In American Pipe & Construction Co. v. Utah, 414 U.S. 538 (1974), and Crown Cork & Seal v. Parker, 462 U.S. 345 (1983), the U.S. Supreme Court held that the pendency of a class action will toll limitations periods for absent class members until class certification is denied.

Much recent attention has been focused on China Agritech Inc. v. Resh

Yesterday, the United States Supreme Court, in a 5-4 opinion, held that an employer and its employees may agree to arbitrate claims on an individual, not a class-wide basis. Epic Systems Corp. v Lewis, No. 16-285 (U.S. May 21, 2018). Writing for the majority, Justice Gorsuch rejects the National Labor Relations Board’s view – in opposition to “77 years of precedent” – that the National Labor Relations Act “effectively nullifies the Arbitration Act.” The majority rendered its opinion against the backdrop of “battling briefs about the law’s meaning” from the ...

The United States Supreme Court, in a 5-3 decision authored by Justice Alito, reversed a Ninth Circuit case concluding that detained aliens have a statutory right to periodic bond hearings during the course of their extended detention.  See Jennings v. Rodriguez,  ____ U.S. ____, No. 15-1204 (U.S. Feb. 27, 2018).  The Court found that the Ninth Circuit’s statutory interpretation in favor of detained noncitizens was “implausible.”  In pedagogical fashion, Justice Alito explained that the Ninth Circuit had turned the doctrine of “constitutional avoidance” on its ...

A good while ago, we reported in this space, about so-called “cy pres” settlements. We highlighted the Chief Justice’s cautionary comments about this practice – under which third parties, not class members, are compensated by defendants. See Marek v. Lane, 134 S.Ct. 8 (2013). After the Ninth Circuit recently approved a cy pres settlement, In Re Google Referrer Header Privacy Litigat., 869 F.3d 737 (9th Cir. 2017), which awarded plaintiffs’ counsel $3.5 million, and six nonprofits/educational institutions another $5.3 million – all while awarding class members the ...

Earlier this year, we hazarded a guess that the Supreme Court was split 4-4 regarding a Ninth Circuit decision holding that a named plaintiff could achieve appellate review of a decision denying class certification by voluntarily dismissing his individual claims. It turns out, based upon the Supreme Court’s decision in Microsoft Corp. v. Baker [], that the internal debate was not so much over whether the Ninth Circuit erred in allowing the appeal, but whether that error had both statutory and constitutional implications. The Supreme Court had accepted certiorari to review ...

In this post we talk about two of our favorite things (relatively speaking): class actions and mootness.  We last looked at these issues when covering the U.S. Supreme Court’s decision in Campbell-Ewald Company v. Gomez, 136 S. Ct. 663 (2016).  There, the Court rejected the defendant’s attempt to “pick off” the named plaintiff in a class action case.  The defendant had made a Rule 68 offer to settle the case for the full value of the plaintiff’s claim.  The plaintiff declined, but the defendant argued that its offer nonetheless mooted the claim.  The Supreme Court rejected that ...

Today we continue our analysis of Judge Gorsuch’s class action opinions from the Tenth Circuit in an effort to better understand how he may rule if confirmed for the Supreme Court. Last week, we examined Judge Gorsuch’s decision in Shook v. Board of County Commissioners, and we will take up his remaining class action opinions below.

McClendon v. City of Albuquerque, 630 F.3d 1288 (10th Cir. 2011)

In McClendon v. City of Albuquerque, decided three years after Shook, Judge Gorsuch again demonstrates judicial restraint. In McClendon, prisoners brought a class action against the ...

The nomination of Tenth Circuit Judge Neil M. Gorsuch for the Supreme Court has jurists and reporters forecasting how, if confirmed, he will rule in cases raising “hot” Constitutional issues. The “hot” question for those of us who litigate class actions is how Justice Gorsuch would engage the next landmark class action, especially since he would replace Justice Antonin Scalia on the Court, author of two of the most significant class action opinions in recent years, Comcast Corp. v. Behrend and Wal-Mart Stores v. Dukes.

We will be examining some of Judge Gorsuch’s ...

Last week, we observed that the Supreme Court appeared to be waiting for a ninth justice to decide in an important case involving appealability of class action certification decisions. A news report today* indicates that the Supreme Court has also pushed out arguments concerning the enforceability of class action waivers. As we recently reported in this space, the Court had agreed in three cases to decide whether the NLRA prohibits employers from requiring non-management employees covered by the NLRA to arbitrate their work-related claims individually. For employers ...

About a year ago, the United States Supreme Court granted Microsoft’s petition to review this question: “Whether a federal court of appeals has jurisdiction under both Article III and 28 U.S.C. Section 1291 to review an order denying class certification after the named plaintiffs voluntarily dismiss their individual claims with prejudice.” Briefing in the case was completed last June, but the case has yet to appear in the calendar of the fourth sitting of the Supreme Court’s term, which began January 9, 2017. Although the reasons for the delay aren’t pellucid, this is an ...

On Friday, the United States Supreme Court granted three petitions for certiorari to determine a quickly developing circuit split. The question before the Court is whether the National Labor Relations Board is correct in its interpretation that class action waiver provisions in certain employment arbitration agreements are illegal under federal labor law. Since 2011, when the U.S. Supreme Court permitted such waivers in AT&T Mobility LLC v. Concepcion, employers have relied upon them to require that disputes be resolved through individual arbitration. The NLRB over the past ...

Yesterday, the Supreme Court issued its opinion in Tyson Foods, Inc. v. Bouaphakeo, voting 6 – 2 to uphold a jury verdict in favor of employees in a donning and doffing action. The class of employees, certified under Iowa Wage and Hour law pursuant to Rule 23, and as a collective action under the Fair Labor Standards Act, worked in the kill, cut and retrim departments of a pork processing plant. They were required to use protective gear and complained that they weren’t paid for the time spent to put on and take off the necessary protection equipment. Because Tyson didn’t keep records ...

Last November we previewed a case raising an important question in the class action world: If a defendant in a putative class action offers the named plaintiff complete relief on the plaintiff’s individual claim, but the plaintiff does not accept the offer, does the offer nonetheless render the case moot? On January 20, the Supreme Court answered “no,” but left open the possibility of a different result if the defendant actually deposits the amount of the plaintiff’s claim in an account payable to the plaintiff. The case is Campbell-Ewald Co. v. Gomez, and you can read the ...

On Monday, the Supreme Court held in DIRECTV, Inc. v. Imburgia that a California appellate court erred by declining to enforce an arbitration agreement that prohibits arbitration on a class-wide basis. The decision is the latest in a steady line from the Supreme Court chastising lower courts for failing to give effect to arbitration agreements. Perhaps most interesting, the opinion is written by Justice Breyer, who recently authored a dissent arguing that the Supreme Court has expanded the Federal Arbitration Act (FAA) too far. In the Imburgia opinion, Justice Breyer acknowledges ...

The Supreme Court began its new Term on October 5, and already the Court is slated to hear several cases that could have major impacts on class-action litigation. Among the issues facing the Court are:

▪ whether a defendant can render a putative class action moot by offering the named plaintiff all the relief the plaintiff could recover individually if the plaintiff were to prevail, even if the plaintiff rejects the offer (Campbell-Ewald Company v. Gomez);

▪ whether a plaintiff has standing to bring a claim (including a class claim) where the plaintiff’s statutory rights were ...

Yesterday, the United States Supreme Court granted Tyson Foods’ petition for certiorari to review the Eighth Circuit’s opinion upholding class certification in a donning and doffing case. A class of Tyson employees brought the suit seeking compensation for time they spent putting on (donning) or removing (doffing) protective equipment and clothing. The decision promises to be most important clarification yet of the scope of the Supreme Court’s Wal-Mart Stores, Inc. v. Dukes decision. The two questions presented for certiorari were: (1) whether differences in ...

Early in May, we reported on the Supreme Court’s review of the Basic v. Levinson presumption of reliance in securities fraud cases. In an opinion today by Justice Roberts, the Court declined the invitation to overrule Basic's presumption of reliance in an efficiently traded market. Three justices (Thomas, Scalia and Alito) were prepared to overrule Basic. The majority held that there was no “special justification” to overrule Basic, noting the absence of “the kind of fundamental shift in economic theory that could justify overruling a precedent on the ground that it ...

In Johnson v. Amazon.com dedc LLC, No. 3:14-cv-01797 (D.S.C. May 2, 2014), seven South Carolina Amazon warehouse workers sued Amazon on behalf of themselves and similarly situated employees alleging unpaid overtime in violation of the Fair Labor Standards Act (“FLSA”) at Amazon’s fulfillment centers in West Columbia and Spartanburg. Plaintiffs allege that they should be compensated for time spent going through “intensive and time-consuming security screening” to enter and exit the fulfillment centers (Compl. ¶35) and for similar security procedures at the start ...

It is difficult to understate the effect on class actions of Basic Inc. v. Levinson, 485 U.S. 224 (1988), which the Supreme Court decided in 1988. It is virtually impossible to demonstrate “reliance” – a key element of most securities’ fraud claims – on a class-wide basis. Indeed, if reliance is a part of the substantive proof required for the class claims, that usually presents a ticket for dismissal of those claims and a denial of class certification. But in Basic, the Supreme Court bridged that gap, reasoning that the stock market was “efficient,” and therefore would ...

Funds from a class action settlement are generally distributed to class members. But in some cases, not all funds are claimed. In others, it may not even be possible or practical to distribute any funds to individual class members. A “cy pres” distribution is one way of dealing with this issue. The concept comes from trust law and means “as near as possible.” The goal of a cy pres settlement is to distribute funds in a way that indirectly benefits the class members.

Last fall, the issue of “cy pres” settlements got some press when Chief Justice Robert issued a warning note about ...

Family Dollar, a national discount store retailer based in Charlotte, was sued by a putative class of female store managers alleging gender discrimination in pay in the Western District of North Carolina. In January 2012, Judge Cogburn dismissed the class claims, holding that they weren’t viable under Dukes v. Wal-Mart Stores Inc., 131 S. Ct. 2541 (2011). His ruling was consistent with plaintiffs’ own declaration earlier in the case: they said their claims were “virtually identical” to those in the Wal-Mart case after the Ninth Circuit’s favorable decision (but before ...

In Mississippi ex rel. Hood v. AU Optronics Corp., 134 S. Ct. 736 (Jan. 14, 2014), the United States Supreme Court held that one plaintiff does not a “mass action” make under the Class Action Fairness Act (CAFA). CAFA defines a “mass action” as a claim brought by more than 100 people, and the Court sided with the State of Mississippi, which had sued in Mississippi state court firms that sold LCD panels, alleging price fixing. The defendants preferred a federal forum in which to oppose the Mississippi Attorney General’s claims and removed the case to federal court, alleging that ...