On March 30, 2021, the United States Supreme Court heard oral argument in Transunion LLC v. Ramirez, No. 20-297, a case that could have far-reaching implications on absent class member standing, particularly where the injuries of these absent class members would be impossible or difficult to establish. The Court agreed to address whether Article III or Rule 23 permits a damages class action where the vast majority of the class suffered no actual injury, let alone an injury like what the class representative suffered.… Continue Reading
In Uzuegbnam v. Preczewski, the Supreme Court held that the award of nominal damages is sufficient to redress a past injury, satisfying Article III’s redressability requirement. While at first blush, the opinion may appear to lessen the burden on any plaintiff in satisfying Article III standing, the more likely outcome is that the holding will be limited to the purely constitutional cases based on federal question jurisdiction. Nevertheless, creative “uninjured” plaintiffs may try to harness the ruling to proceed in federal court on nominal damages claims in cases not involving a federal question—for example a putative class action under … Continue Reading
TCPA class actions based on the receipt of unsolicited text messages have grown more common in recent years. However, the Eleventh Circuit’s decision in Salcedo v. Hanna, may upend that trend by holding that a single unsolicited text message did not generate the harm necessary to satisfy Article III standing to sustain a Telephone Consumer Protection Act (“TCPA”) claim.
In Salcedo, the Eleventh Circuit reviewed its own precedent, the legislative history of the TCPA, and the Supreme Court’s decision in Spokeo v. Robins, 136 S. Ct. 1540 (2016)—which concluded that plaintiffs must allege concrete injuries and could not … Continue Reading