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
Fifth Circuit Sua Sponte Vacates Class-Certification Order for Lack of Standing
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
Eleventh Circuit Vacates Class Certification and Settlement Based on Lack of Standing for Class Members
In Drazen v. Pinto, –F.4th–, 2022 WL 2963470 (July 27, 2022), the Eleventh Circuit vacated a district court’s decision to certify a class under Rule 23 and approve the class settlement because the class included members who lacked Article III standing.
This case involves three consolidated class actions against GoDaddy.com, each of which alleges the company violated the Telephone Consumer Protection Act of 1991 (“TCPA”) by using a prohibited automatic telephone dialing system to make unsolicited contact with plaintiffs through calls and texts to market its services and products.
Seventh Circuit Vacates 25% Attorneys’ Fee Award
The 7th Circuit recently vacated a 25% attorneys’ fee award in In re Stericycle Securities Litigation, No. 20-2055, 2022 WL 1564997, at *1–14 (7th Cir. May 18, 2022). The Court’s reasoning focused on the previous litigation against the defendant.
Years before this litigation, a former Stericycle employee brought a qui tam action under the False Claims Act with similar claims. Various settlements with governments and private customers followed.
Continue Reading Seventh Circuit Vacates 25% Attorneys’ Fee Award
First Circuit Upholds Sanctions Related to Attorney’s Fees
In Arkansas Teacher Retirement System v. State Street Corporation, — F.4th —-, 2022 WL 391450 (1st Cir. Feb. 9, 2022), the First Circuit Court of Appeals upheld a district court’s sanction of law firm Lieff Cabraser Heimann & Bernstein LLP (“Lieff Cabraser”) related to class action attorney’s fees.
Lieff Cabraser, along with several other firms, represented a class of investors in a challenge to charges imposed on foreign exchange products. After years of litigation and mediation, the parties reached a settlement of $300 million. Relying on representations made by class counsel, the district court awarded class counsel almost $75 million—roughly 25% of the total settlement.
Continue Reading First Circuit Upholds Sanctions Related to Attorney’s Fees
No-Injury Class Actions: U.S. Supreme Court Issues Final Ruling (Part II)
On June 25, 2021, the United States Supreme Court issued its opinion in TransUnion LLC v. Ramirez (“Ramirez”), holding that all plaintiffs, to include absent class members, must demonstrate that they have suffered a concrete harm in order to have Article III standing to sue for damages. Building off its decision in Spokeo v. Robins, LLC, the Court confirmed that even where Congress passes a law creating an individual cause of action, uninjured plaintiffs do not have standing to sue in federal court simply because that law is violated. Justice Kavanaugh, writing for a 5-4 majority, summarized the Court’s holding in five simple words: “No concrete harm, no standing.”
Continue Reading No-Injury Class Actions: U.S. Supreme Court Issues Final Ruling (Part II)
Will No-Injury Class Actions Have Any Leg to Stand on? U.S. Supreme Court Hears Argument in TransUnion v. Ramirez
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 Will No-Injury Class Actions Have Any Leg to Stand on? U.S. Supreme Court Hears Argument in TransUnion v. Ramirez
9th Circuit Saves Nationwide Settlement Classes
Sometimes settlement with a putative class of nationwide consumers is the best option for resolution. However, since the initial ruling of the Ninth Circuit in In re Hyundai & Kia Fuel Econ. Litig., the mechanism to go about doing so has been in flux. On June 6, 2019, the full en banc Ninth Circuit
California Court of Appeals Joins FCRA’s Mad Tea Party
The roller coaster of employer liability under the background check provisions of the Fair Credit Reporting Act (FCRA) recently took an upswing with the California Court of Appeals’ decision in Culberson v. Walt Disney Parks & Resorts. The Culberson court considered two class claims, both of which are now-familiar spindles ready to prick the
Hyper-Technical Interpretation: 9th Circuit Increases FCRA Reach
On Jan. 29, 2019, the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals, in a strikingly broad decision, raised the bar for employers’ compliance with the Fair Credit Reporting Act (FCRA). In Gilberg v California Check Cashing Stores LLC, the court held that an employer violates the FCRA by including, in a pre-background check notice form,