The Eighth Circuit recently held that a district court “applied the wrong legal standard” when it remanded a case after removal under the Class Action Fairness Act (“CAFA”).  In Leflar v. Target Corp.,[1] the district court held that “all doubts about federal jurisdiction” must be in favor of remand.  While this presumption may apply to “mine-run diversity cases,” the Eighth Circuit reinforced that no anti-removal presumption applies under CAFA.

Continue Reading Eighth Circuit Confirms That No Anti-Removal Presumption Applies under CAFA

On Jan. 4, the 10th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals made an important ruling in a Title IX class action seeking to compel creation of a girls-only high school football team.

Read on for details about this case, which highlights the gravity of precisely applying the standard of commonality of interest and demonstrates that a

On November 30, 2022, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit affirmed a district court’s finding that a settlement was not a coupon settlement when applying the three factors outlined in In re Online DVD-Rental Antitrust Litig., 779 F.3d 934, 950 (9th Cir. 2015).

Continue Reading Ninth Circuit Renders Section 1712 of CAFA Inapplicable to a Class Action Settlement

On October 28, 2022, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit in Alig v. Rocket Mortgage vacated and remanded for reconsideration a district court order certifying a class of mortgage borrowers, highlighting an important Article III standing issue in class action lawsuits.  See Alig v. Rocket Mortgage, LLC, 52 F.4th 167 (4th Cir. 2022).  The Alig decision relies on the United States Supreme Court’s decision in TransUnion LLC v. Ramirez and follows a grant of certiorari, vacatur, and remand from the U.S. Supreme Court.  The decision provides further ammunition for the argument that all putative class members must have a demonstrable injury in order to recover damages in a class actionIndeed, the grant of certiorari by the Supreme Court in Alig is itself a signal that this defense is one that should not be discounted by defendants finding themselves the subject of class action litigation.

Continue Reading Fourth Circuit Vacates and Remands Class Certification Decision in Accordance with Supreme Court’s Directive to Consider Ramirez’s Effect on Issues of Standing in Mortgage Class Action

On October 7, 2022, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit denied a purported class representative’s attempt to intervene in a class action. The class representative had argued that his interests were not adequately represented.

Continue Reading U.S. Court of Appeals’ Continued Skepticism Over Putative Class Member Motions to Intervene

In a recent case addressing the novel issue of whether foreign law trumped United States law for purposes of class action tolling, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit concluded that Colombian law on equitable tolling applied, even though the defendant was based in New Jersey.

Continue Reading Eleventh Circuit Concludes that Foreign Country’s Equitable Tolling Standards Can Apply in Federal Class Action

In Kelly v. RealPage, Inc., the Third Circuit held that a small subclass of consumers could proceed on their class action against RealPage based on the company’s failure to provide them with required third-party information in credit reports.  In issuing the decision, the court is one of the first Circuit Courts to squarely address the scope of what constitutes an “informational injury” in the wake of the Supreme Court’s recent decision in Transunion LLC  v. Ramirez, 141 S. Ct. 2190 (2021).

Continue Reading Third Circuit Decision Provides Post-Transunion Guidance on Informational Injuries and Ascertainability

A recent lawsuit alleges that Skittles consumers “are at heightened risk of a host of health effects” because Skittles uses titanium dioxide (TiO2).  TiO2 is considered an inert and safe material, and for decades has been used in a range of consumer products including house paint, ceramics, paper, and printing inks.  In fact, you can

On August 15, 2022, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit vacated a class-certification order on a Rule 23(f) appeal after sua sponte holding that the named plaintiff had no standing to sue.  The case is yet another example of how federal courts closely examine standing following the U.S. Supreme Court’s mandate in TransUnion LLC v. Ramirez, — U.S. —, 141 S. Ct. 2190 (2021): “Every class member must have Article III standing in order to recover individual damages.”  Id. at 2208.

Continue Reading Fifth Circuit Sua Sponte Vacates Class-Certification Order for Lack of Standing