Rule 23 does not explicitly require that a court be able to determine who the members are before certifying a class. But judges have found implicit in the Rule a requirement that membership in a defined class be...more
On February 2, 2021, the Eleventh Circuit reversed the district court’s denial of class certification for failure to prove an administratively feasible method to identify absent class members. The Eleventh Circuit’s rejection...more
Eleventh Circuit Rejects Administrative Feasibility Requirement: What Does the Future Hold for Ascertainability? As we discussed in our Spring 2017 issue of The Class Action Chronicle, courts have struggled to define the...more
The opioid MDL court (the Northern District of Ohio) recently denied class certification to plaintiffs seeking class certification as guardians of individual children diagnosed at birth with neonatal abstinence syndrome...more
Takeaway: Administrative feasibility is not a prerequisite for class certification in the Eleventh Circuit, although it remains a relevant consideration under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23(b)(3)’s manageability factor....more
The Eleventh Circuit has joined the Second, Sixth, Seventh, Eighth, and Ninth Circuits in rejecting administrative feasibility as a prerequisite for class certification. The decision reverses unpublished Eleventh Circuit...more
Takeaway: The Circuits have split on the issue of whether a class representative must show the class is “ascertainable.” The Third Circuit has required a Rule 23(b)(3) class to be “currently and readily ascertainable.” ...more
Takeaway: The ascertainability requirement for class actions has divided both California and federal appellate courts. In Noel v. Thrifty Payless, Inc., --- P.3d ----, No. S246490, 2019 WL 3403895 (CA July 29, 2019), the...more
This edition focuses on rulings issued between February 16, 2018, and June 15, 2018. In this issue, we cover three decisions granting motions to strike/dismiss class claims, five decisions denying such motions, 27 decisions...more
This edition focuses on rulings issued between November 16, 2017, and February 15, 2018. In this issue, we cover five decisions granting motions to strike/dismiss class claims, seven decisions denying such motions, 15...more
A New Jersey district court denied certification to a putative class of Tropicana orange juice purchasers from “Members Only” or “Loyalty Card” stores in California, New York, New Jersey, and Wisconsin. Plaintiffs alleged...more
The Second Circuit recently rejected the “heightened” ascertainability requirement under Rule 23(b)(3), turning aside a challenge to a district court’s certification of a securities fraud class action. Instead, the court...more
On July 7, in In re Petrobras Securities, the 2nd Circuit declined to adopt an independent “administrative feasibility” requirement for class certification under Rule 23. In so holding, the 2nd Circuit joined the 6th, 7th,...more
On Friday, the Second Circuit Court of Appeals’ decision in In re Petrobras Securities refused to adopt what it called a “’heightened’ two-part ascertainability test in class action cases. The Second Circuit agreed that...more
The Second Circuit held recently that putative securities class actions involving transactions in non-U.S.-listed foreign securities require careful scrutiny to determine whether the class members' claims can be litigated on...more
On July 7, 2017, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit offered significant guidance regarding the circuit’s class certification requirements in In re Petrobras Securities, No. 16-1914. In addressing an issue of...more
Two couples who own homes in central Florida attempted to bring a class action against a homebuilder, stemming from alleged violations of Florida’s building code. Section 553.84, Florida Statutes, provides for such a private...more
The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit recently upheld certification of a class of retail purchasers of Wesson-brand cooking oil in a false advertising case, despite the fact that almost all class members will never...more
A fair amount of attention has been given in the legal media to the Fairness in Class Action Litigation Act of 2017, H.R. 985, which has passed the House of Representatives and is currently under consideration by the Senate....more
The House of Representatives has reintroduced the Fairness in Class Action Litigation Act (FICALA), and it’s more substantial than the 2015 version. The previous version, you may recall, attempted to reinforce the typicality...more
A potent weapon for defending against class actions is the requirement that class members be “ascertainable.” Circuit courts phrase this requirement differently, but at bottom, it is two-fold: (1) the class must be...more
Over the past four years, the federal circuit courts have frequently been called upon to address the proper role and scope of the “ascertainability” requirement in the class certification analysis. The results have varied by...more
On Jan. 3, in Briseno v. Conagra Foods, Inc., Case No. 15-55727, the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals held that Fed. R. Civ. P. 23 does not require class representatives to demonstrate that there is an “administratively...more
On January 3, 2017, the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals declined to adopt “administrative feasibility” as an independent requirement for class certification. It held that Rule 23 does not require class counsel to show at the...more
On October 17, 2016, in a case of first impression, the Sixth Circuit held that ascertainability is not a requirement in Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23(b)(2) class actions. The Sixth Circuit joined three other Circuits...more