Supreme Court Decides Frank v. Gaos

Faegre Drinker Biddle & Reath LLP

Faegre Baker Daniels

On March 20, 2019, the Supreme Court issued a per curiam opinion in Frank v. Gaos, No. 17-961, declining to address whether the class-action settlement was fair, reasonable, and adequate under Fed. R. Civ. P. 23(e), and instead vacating and remanding the case to the lower courts to address whether the named plaintiffs have standing in light of Spokeo, Inc. v. Robins.

The Court initially granted certiorari to address whether a class-action settlement that provides a cy pres award to third parties but no direct benefit to class members satisfies the requirement of Fed. R. Civ. P. 23(e) that a class settlement be “fair, reasonable, and adequate.” But after the Solicitor General filed an amicus brief questioning whether any named plaintiff had standing under Spokeo, the Court asked the parties for supplemental briefing on the standing question. The Court decided that the courts below had not addressed the plaintiffs’ standing under Spokeo, and the Court vacated the decision below and remanded for the lower courts to address that question.

Justice Thomas filed a dissenting opinion.

Download Opinion of the Court.

Written by:

Faegre Drinker Biddle & Reath LLP

Faegre Drinker Biddle & Reath LLP on:

Reporters on Deadline

Related Case Law

"My best business intelligence, in one easy email…"

Your first step to building a free, personalized, morning email brief covering pertinent authors and topics on JD Supra:
*By using the service, you signify your acceptance of JD Supra's Privacy Policy.
Custom Email Digest
- hide
- hide

This website uses cookies to improve user experience, track anonymous site usage, store authorization tokens and permit sharing on social media networks. By continuing to browse this website you accept the use of cookies. Click here to read more about how we use cookies.