Class Actions Brief Blog

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 ...

Life has its disappointments. Sometimes, you think you’ve won a free car, but it turns out that you’ve won only a couple of dollars. And sometimes, you think that an appellate court will clarify a thorny issue of class-action law, but the court leaves that issue unresolved. These scenarios coalesced in a recent decision from the North Carolina Supreme Court: Surgeon v. TKO Shelby LLC.

The Surgeon case arose when hundreds of people allegedly suffered the first disappointment above. A car dealership mailed out flyers that advertised a scratch-off contest. According to the ...

Last month, the D.C. Circuit deepened a circuit split on the issue of fail-safe classes. The decision, In re White, 64 F.4th 302 (D.C. Cir. 2023), rejected a categorical rule against all fail-safe classes in favor of a case-by-case approach rooted in the text of the federal rules. With this ruling, the D.C. Circuit called for a return to the fundamentals of Rule 23 in the analysis of fail-safe classes.

A fail-safe class is one in which membership can’t be determined until the case is resolved on the merits. Whether someone qualifies as a member of a fail-safe class depends on whether they ...

Rule 23 does not explicitly require that a court be able to determine who the members are before certifying a class. But judges have found implicit in the Rule a requirement that membership in a defined class be “ascertainable” or “definite.” For example, a court cannot address the numerosity requirement or provide effective relief to the class without first determining who the members of a class are.

In recent years, the federal appellate courts have adopted two approaches to addressing ascertainability. The first approach, adopted by the First, Third, Fourth, and Sixth ...

Updated 8-16-22: StarKist and the other defendants filed their petition for certiorari in the Olean Wholesale Grocery case. A link to the Petition is here.

In September 2021 and again in June of this year, we wrote about the Ninth Circuit’s opinion in Olean Wholesale Grocery v. Bumble Bee Foods and the court’s opinion following rehearing en banc. The defendants in Olean obtained a extension to file a certiorari petition with the Supreme Court through August 8, 2022, so the last word may not have been written in Olean.

On July 5, 2022, the Ninth Circuit issued another notable class ...

Last September, we wrote about the Ninth Circuit’s opinion in Olean Wholesale Grocery v. Bumble Bee Foods and the court’s decision to rehear the case en banc.  The en banc Ninth Circuit has now waded back into the class certification waters, with mixed results for defendants.  While the en banc court tossed back the panel’s holding that the presence of more than a de minimis number of uninjured class members is fatal to certification, it also clarified certain procedural matters under Rule 23 that may lead to smoother sailing for defendants at the certification stage.

As we ...

In order to have a class certified, the plaintiffs have the burden of proving to the satisfaction of the court, “after a rigorous analysis,” that they comply with Rule 23—that is, that “there are in fact sufficiently numerous parties, common questions of law or fact, etc.”  Wal-Mart Stores Inc. v. Dukes, 564 U.S. 338, 350-51 (2011) (internal quote omitted).  One of the findings required by Rule 23 is that common issues predominate, as discussed in last month’s blog post by Travis Hinman.  Predominance as to damages requires a showing that the members of a proposed class were ...

The extent to which the presence of uninjured class members may defeat class certification remains unsettled. While, standing alone, the existence of some uninjured class members may not be not fatal (depending on the circuit), just how many is too many to satisfy the predominance requirement of Rule 23(b)(3) is still in flux.

The Ninth Circuit waded into this debate earlier this year in Olean Wholesale Grocery Coop. Inc. v. Bumble Bee Foods LLC. Before the case made its way to the appellate court, the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of California certified three classes ...

We have reported recently in this space on the certification of state wage and hour claims. Judge Gergel recently continued with this trend, certifying a class of Jamaican workers at the Kiawah Island Golf Resort who contend they weren’t paid enough by the Resort. See Moodie v. Kiawah Island Inn Co. LLC, No. 2:15-cv-1097 (D.S.C. Aug. 24, 2015). Defendants argued that the differences in class members were such that the court would have to certify six classes, but the Court rejected that notion, saying the argument stemmed from a “novel proposition that Plaintiffs must propose [a ...

In an “opt out” class action, sending notice to class members following class certification is not only routine, but required by due process. But does a district court have the right to order notice prior to a decision on class certification? In Gardener v. GMAC, Inc., No. 14-208 (4th Cir. Aug. 6, 2015), both the district court and the Fourth Circuit “assumed for the sake of argument” that Rule 23(d)(1)(B) provides the trial court with that authority. But each declined to accept the plaintiffs' argument that the facts warranted such notice. Observing that pre-certification ...

Courts have understandably been reluctant to certify a class consisting of “persons who are injured by the defendant” or “individuals to whom the defendant is liable,” i.e., a class definition that depends on the outcome of the case. Such a “fail-safe” class is unfair to defendants:  if defendants win the case, there is no class that is bound by the result because the class consists solely of victors.

A West Virginia judge recently denied a former Dollar General employee her bid for class certification, finding the proposed class was fail-safe and therefore improper ...