Class Actions Brief Blog

Since the Supreme Court’s opinion in TransUnion LLC v. Ramirez, 594 U.S. 413 (2021), litigants and courts alike have struggled to determine whether certain intangible harms are “concrete, particularized, and actual or imminent” such that a plaintiff has standing to sue. Indeed, this blog has previously analyzed cases addressing that question here and here.

The Fourth Circuit weighed in recently, holding that a subset of plaintiffs whose drivers’ license numbers were leaked and published online had standing to sue, but the plaintiffs whose numbers were leaked and ...

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 ...

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 ...

On Aug. 18, the United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit issued an opinion in the long-running Marriott Data Breach MDL Litigation. The Fourth Circuit reversed a district court’s class certification decision, holding that the district court erred in certifying damages classes against the Marriott defendants without first addressing, as a threshold issue, the potential enforceability of a “class-action waiver” that could be applicable to all members of the putative class. The Court of Appeals also reversed the district court’s certification of issue ...

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 ...