Header graphic for print
Class Defense Blog Cutting-Edge Issues in Class Action Law and Policy

Tag Archives: standing

Eighth Circuit Holds that a Plaintiff who Settles Individual Claims Lacks Standing to Challenge Denial of Class Certification

Posted in Appeals, Class Certification

Here’s a common scenario:  After unsuccessfully moving for class certification and having a petition for review under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23(f) rebuffed, the plaintiff wants to take another shot at an appeal.  Can the plaintiff simply settle his individual claims—subject to his right to appeal the denial of class certification—so that he has a… Continue Reading

Do Plaintiffs Have Standing To Sue Over Alleged Reduction In The Value Of Their Personal Data?

Posted in Class Action Trends, Motions Practice

A key question in many privacy class actions is whether the plaintiff has suffered an injury sufficient to confer Article III standing. Quite a number of these actions have been dismissed for lack of standing. The plaintiffs’ bar therefore has been brainstorming new theories of injury in the hope that one of them will be… Continue Reading

Do the Plaintiffs Lack Standing or Are Their Claims Simply Meritless—or Both?

Posted in Adequacy, Class Action Trends, Class Certification, Commonality, Predominance, Typicality

Here’s the situation: You’re facing a class action in federal court in which the plaintiffs define the putative class so broadly as to encompass many people who weren’t injured by the alleged wrongdoing. For example, consider a false-advertising class action on behalf of “all purchasers” of a product that the vast majority of purchasers would… Continue Reading

Supreme Court Denies Review In NECA-IBEW Case

Posted in Adequacy, Class Certification, Commonality, Predominance, Securities, Typicality

We’ve been blogging about the Second Circuit’s decision in NECA-IBEW Health & Welfare Fund v. Goldman Sachs (pdf), which held that a named plaintiff in a securities fraud suit might have standing in some situations to assert class action claims regarding securities that he or she never purchased. Yesterday, the Supreme Court denied (pdf) Goldman’s petition… Continue Reading

Plaintiffs Seek to Revive Securities Fraud Class Actions Under Second Circuit’s “Class Standing” Doctrine

Posted in Class Action Trends, Securities

I previously blogged about the Second Circuit’s troubling decision in NECA-IBEW Health & Welfare Fund v. Goldman Sachs & Co. (pdf), 693 F.3d 145 (2d Cir. 2012), which invented a “class standing” doctrine allowing a named plaintiff in a class action to assert Securities Act claims regarding securities that he or she never purchased. In the… Continue Reading

Can Members of a Mandatory Class Action Opt Out?

Posted in Adequacy, Class Action Settlements, Rule 23(b)(1), Rule 23(b)(2)

A recent decision from the Delaware Supreme Court is a reminder that the members of a mandatory class—one in which the class isn’t guaranteed opt-out rights—sometimes may be given the right to opt out in order to pursue their own individual actions. The decision, In re Celera Corp. Shareholder Litigation (pdf), addressed a class settlement of… Continue Reading

What’s Next for the Class Action Plaintiffs’ Bar? Getting Deputized by State Attorneys General

Posted in Class Action Trends

Some academics and commentators have been reading the tea leaves in Wal-Mart Stores, Inc. v. Dukes (pdf) and AT&T Mobility LLC v. Concepcion (pdf) as spelling doom for consumer and employment class actions. That’s overwrought; Dukes rejected an extremely adventuresome application of the class action rules by the Ninth Circuit, and Concepcion merely reminded courts… Continue Reading

NECA-IBEW: Second Circuit Rules That Plaintiffs Sometimes Have Standing to Bring Class Claims Covering Securities Offerings Other Than Ones in Which They Bought

Posted in Class Certification, Motions Practice

Can a plaintiff who bought a security in one offering bring a class action on behalf of purchasers in other offerings if the plaintiff alleges a misstatement common to all of the offerings? In cases under Sections 11 and 12 of the 1933 Securities Act—particularly those involving mortgage-backed securities—the consensus view had been that a… Continue Reading