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 ...

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 ...

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 ...

The Sixth Circuit appears poised to become the fourth federal court of appeals to reject the use of the “juridical link” doctrine as a means to establish Article III standing in a class action. The doctrine, a seldom-used class action legal concept, recognizes an exception to the ordinary Article III standing requirements in instances in which “all defendants are juridically related in a manner that suggests a single resolution of the dispute would be expeditious.” Thompson v. Bd. of Educ. of Romeo Cmty, Sch., 709 F.2d 1200, 1204-05 (6th Cir. 1983).

A “juridical ...

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 ...

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.

Standing to sue, a venerable piece of American jurisprudence for sure, continues to draw attention in recent class action cases, including in the Fourth Circuit. In its second decision this year evaluating last term’s Supreme Court decision, Spokeo v. Robins, 136 S. Ct. 1540 (2016), a unanimous panel of the Fourth Circuit found insufficient “an informational injury” the lead plaintiff advanced under the Fair Credit Reporting Act—the same statute under review in Spokeo.  Dreher v. Experian Information Solutions Inc., 856 F. 3d 337 (4th Cir. May 11, 2017). See also Beck v ...

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 ...

In this space, we concentrate on class action decisions in the Carolinas, as well as Fourth Circuit and United States Supreme Court precedent. Occasionally, though, we venture beyond these jurisdictions to highlight issues of particular note, including those where courts are divided. We’ve previously reported here how offers of judgment interact with mootness. In Campbell-Ewald Co. v. Gomez, the United States Supreme Court held that an unaccepted settlement offer, even if it offers all relief sought in the case, does not render a case moot when the affected party seeks relief ...

Experian recently petitioned the Fourth Circuit to immediately review a district court’s order certifying an 88,000-member, nationwide class of consumers who requested Experian credit reports that listed accounts with the now-defunct Advanta Bank. In this case, Dreher v. Experian Information Solutions Inc., No. 14-325 (4th Cir. July 3, 2014), Experian requested an interlocutory appeal under Rule 23(f), contending that, among other things, the district court’s order that certified a class with members that had suffered no injury and found Rule 23’s predominance ...

It is often expedient for a defendant to make an offer of judgment in order to avoid the expense of lengthy proceedings, particularly when the plaintiff’s damages claim is small. But what happens when the offer of judgment is made to a class representative? Does that mean that the individual no longer has standing? And does it make any difference if the offer is made before or after the class certification motion is filed? Judge Currie grappled with these issues last week in a Fair Debt Collection Practices Act case, Chatham v. GC Services, LP, No. 3:14-cv-00526 (D.S.C. July 16, 2014)