Photo of Diane Flannery

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

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

During a span of less than two months, a group of Arkansas lawyers filed 22 class action suits in Lonoke County, Arkansas, alleging violations of the Magnuson-Moss Warranty Act. Here are five key items to know:
Continue Reading Manufacturers and Retailers Beware: New Warranty Class Actions

On Wednesday, August 3, 2022, the Eleventh Circuit confirmed the groundbreaking decision that incentive payments given to a named plaintiff in a class action are improper by denying a petition for rehearing en banc that had been pending for almost 22 months.  See Johnson v. NPAS Solutions, LLC, No. 18-12344, “Slip Op.” (11th Cir.

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. 

Continue Reading Eleventh Circuit Vacates Class Certification and Settlement Based on Lack of Standing for Class Members

Appellee Thomas Fox and others failed to pay their delinquent property taxes in certain Michigan counties and had their property foreclosed on and sold. However, the counties kept all of the sale proceeds and not just the money that was owed. In some cases, the counties kept tens of thousands of dollars beyond what was owed. Therefore, Fox brought a class action seeking recovery of the surplus funds.

Continue Reading Sixth Circuit Addresses Pre-Certification and Post-Certification Engagement of Potential Class Members in Class Actions

The 7th Circuit in Schutte v. Ciox Health, LLC., construed the Local Controversy Exception to the Class Action Fairness Act.[1]  CAFA’s Local Controversy Exception applies, in pertinent part, if “during the 3-year period preceding the filing of that class action, no other class action has been filed asserting the same or similar factual allegations against any of the defendants, on behalf of the same or other persons.”[2]  The Court interpreted this requirement broadly, finding that even when cases with different legal theories had been filed in different states, courts may refuse to remand if there are “the same or similar factual allegations” in those cases.  There are three other situations that trigger the Local Controversy Exception[3] but the court did not address them.

Continue Reading Seventh Circuit Construes CAFA Exception for the First Time