It is axiomatic that to certify a class, plaintiffs must show all members satisfy Article III standing and Rule 23 requirements. While federal courts "do not require each member of a class to submit evidence of personal standing, a class cannot be certified if it contains members who lack standing" to pursue the claim(s) asserted, according to Halvorson v. Auto Owners Insurance, 718 F.2d 773 (8th Cir. 2013).
By way of illustration, a claim for strict products liability typically requires a plaintiff to demonstrate (1) that the product is defective; (2) that the defect existed at the time the product left the manufacturer's hands; and (3) that the defect was the proximate cause of the plaintiff's injuries. (See Reese v. Ford Motor, 499 Fed. Appx. 163 (3d Cir. Pa. 2012) (applying Restatement (Second) of Torts Section 402(A)).) It should a fortiori follow that regardless of whether a design defect, manufacturing defect or warning claim is asserted, a class of plaintiffs who purchased a particular product is not certifiable if it contains members who are unable to establish each of these three basic elements. A design-defect class, for instance, should not be certified if it contains class participants who are unable to demonstrate the element of proximate cause.
Originally published in The Legal Intelligencer on September 18, 2014.
Please see full publication below for more information.