Class Actions Brief Blog

Since the Supreme Court’s opinion in TransUnion LLC v. Ramirez, 594 U.S. 413 (2021), litigants and courts alike have struggled to determine whether certain intangible harms are “concrete, particularized, and actual or imminent” such that a plaintiff has standing to sue. Indeed, this blog has previously analyzed cases addressing that question here and here.

The Fourth Circuit weighed in recently, holding that a subset of plaintiffs whose drivers’ license numbers were leaked and published online had standing to sue, but the plaintiffs whose numbers were leaked and ...

This blog often focuses on traditional, opt-out class actions brought under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23, but there is another common form of mass action: collective actions under the Fair Labor Standards Act and the Age Discrimination in Employment Act. More than 5,000 collective action lawsuits are filed each year under the FLSA and ADEA, making those claims among the most popular forms of mass action and worthy of continued attention.

The FLSA and ADEA allow for aggregate litigation by providing that claims can be brought by employees on behalf of themselves and “other ...

We’ve written previously about courts’ differing approaches to ascertainability — an implicit requirement under Rule 23 that class members must be identifiable. A pending petition for certiorari in Career Counseling Inc. v. Amerifactors Financial Group LLC, No. 24-86 (2024), asks the Supreme Court to resolve some of these differences.

The petition originates with a District of South Carolina order denying class certification in a Telephone Consumer Protection Act case. Career Counseling, a staffing services company, filed a putative class action for alleged TCPA ...

A recent Fourth Circuit decision extends the trend of cases refusing to use federal statutes to invalidate arbitration agreements waiving the right to bring class claims in federal court.

The statute at issue in Espin v. Citibank N.A., 126 F.4th 1010 (4th Cir. 2025)—the Servicemembers Civil Relief Act (“SCRA”)—provides special legal protections to active-duty members of the military, including a cap on the interest rate they may be charged on credit cards. The plaintiffs were former servicemembers who alleged that Citibank violated SCRA by charging them market-rate ...

Glue is an object commonly found in schools, yet the “glue” that binds class action commonality appears to be a scarce commodity for students with disabilities and their parents. In September 2024, the Fourth Circuit decided that students with disabilities in Kanawha County, West Virginia, had suffered harms too individualized to be addressed together as a class.^[1]

This ruling reversed the trial court’s class certification decision, a ruling by Judge Irene Berger (S.D.W.Va.), who had found commonality among the students in that all had allegedly experienced harm through ...

Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23(f) gives the court of appeals discretion to review a narrow class of interlocutory orders: those granting or denying class certification. But it is sometimes possible for other orders to come along for the ride, as demonstrated by the Fourth Circuit’s recent decision in Elegant Massage LLC v. State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Company, 95 F.4th 181 (4th Cir. 2024). The court’s use of pendent appellate jurisdiction could expand the opportunities for interlocutory review of merits-related rulings in class action litigation.

A Class for ...

In general, a litigant cannot sue for another person’s injury. In that circumstance, the litigant has no “standing” to pursue those claims. But Rule 23 — at least in a broad sense — allows a class representative to assert claims for her own injuries and for the injuries experienced by others, at least if the class representative’s claim is “typical” and there are “common questions” at issue.

Analytically, these are different concepts. Standing, at least in federal courts, relates to a court’s constitutional jurisdiction, is most often determined at the ...

On Aug. 18, the United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit issued an opinion in the long-running Marriott Data Breach MDL Litigation. The Fourth Circuit reversed a district court’s class certification decision, holding that the district court erred in certifying damages classes against the Marriott defendants without first addressing, as a threshold issue, the potential enforceability of a “class-action waiver” that could be applicable to all members of the putative class. The Court of Appeals also reversed the district court’s certification of issue ...

Earlier this year, the Fourth Circuit published an updated roadmap for addressing objections to class settlement. The decision, 1988 Trust for Allen Children Dated 8/8/88 v. Banner Life Insurance Co., 28 F.4th 513 (4th Cir. 2022), will be an important resource for parties hoping to bypass objections en route to settlement. It will also be an important guidepost for class members pursuing objections with hopes of slowing down settlement traffic.

Allen Trust clarifies—for the first time in the Fourth Circuit—the burden of proof that applies when a class member objects to ...

As class action litigation under ERISA continues its upward trend across the country, could Article III standing serve as a means through which a Court can fairly assess claims before costly discovery is imposed on defendants and judicial resources are expended? Several recent federal court decisions suggest as much.

ERISA, which provides protection to employees who participate in employee benefit plans, confers statutory standing on plan participants and beneficiaries to seek relief against their benefit plans as well as fiduciaries of these plans in federal court. Although ...

This post concerns a recurring topic in class-action practice: how a party—through its own litigation conduct—can waive its right to arbitrate.

The topic warrants attention, or at least came to our attention, because of a recent decision from a federal appellate court. The case, called Morgan v. Sundance, Inc., is a putative nationwide collective action filed under the Fair Labor Standards Act.

The defendant (Sundance) owns Taco Bell franchises in multiple states. The plaintiff (Robyn Morgan) worked at a Sundance restaurant in Iowa. She has accused Sundance of not paying her ...

The Fourth Circuit’s opinion in Bell v. Brockett, No. 18-1149 (4th Cir. Apr. 25, 2019), posits that “[d]efendant class actions are so rare they have been compared to unicorns.” But what may be even rarer is an opinion, like Bell, in which a court opines on the fundamental and concerning nature of the district court’s clear errors regarding the appointment of class counsel, but nonetheless decides not to reverse. 

Bell arises from the ZeekRewards.com (“Zeek”) fraud scheme. Zeek offered participants the opportunity to share in revenues generated by Zeek’s supposed ...

We often report in our monthly digests on cases asserting claims under the federal Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA) and state wage and hour laws. These cases generally involve claims that a company, often a restaurant or delivery service company, failed to pay overtime, used an improper “tip pool,” or treated workers as independent contractors, not employees. Resolving these cases can become complicated because they involve both a collective action and a class action.

Claims asserted under the FLSA are considered collective actions, not class actions. Collective actions ...

We don’t often get appellate guidance after a federal trial judge remands a case to state court following removal because 28 U.S.C. Sect. 1447(d) generally makes such a ruling unreviewable. But the Class Action Fairness Act (“CAFA”), 28 U.S.C. Sect. 1332(d), permits a court of appeals to accept an appeal of a remand from a class action. The Fourth Circuit exercised this right in Scott v. Cricket Communications, LLC, No. 16-2300 (4th Cir. July 28, 2017), in order to provide some guidance about the quantum and quality of proof required to prove the amount in controversy under ...

Standing to sue, a venerable piece of American jurisprudence for sure, continues to draw attention in recent class action cases, including in the Fourth Circuit. In its second decision this year evaluating last term’s Supreme Court decision, Spokeo v. Robins, 136 S. Ct. 1540 (2016), a unanimous panel of the Fourth Circuit found insufficient “an informational injury” the lead plaintiff advanced under the Fair Credit Reporting Act—the same statute under review in Spokeo.  Dreher v. Experian Information Solutions Inc., 856 F. 3d 337 (4th Cir. May 11, 2017). See also Beck v ...

Earlier this year, we reported that Multiple Studies Show Increase in Securities Class Actions. Cornerstone Research, one of the groups covered in our earlier report, recently issued its 2016 Midyear Assessment. This new analysis, which covers cases filed in January through June of this year, is consistent with several of the trends we reported previously, including the increasing number of securities class actions, the rise in the number of cases against smaller companies, and the increase in the number of Fourth Circuit cases.

Of particular interest is the significant increase ...

Recent studies by PricewaterhouseCoopers, NERA Economic Consulting, Cornerstone, and Kevin LaCroix of D&O Diary have all found that federal securities class actions are on the rise. According to PwC, the data shows a trend towards more cases filed against smaller companies, especially for claims regarding accounting irregularities. Smaller companies also face a significant risk of claims regarding inadequate internal controls over financial reporting, likely due to their smaller size and more limited resources.

NERA found that standard federal securities class actions ...

Characterizing an unpublished 2007 decision to the contrary as a “thin reed” displaced by later Supreme Court guidance, the Fourth Circuit held that the question of whether an arbitration agreement permits class proceedings is a “gateway” issue for the court, and not a procedural question left to the arbitrator to decide. Del Webb Communities Inc. v. Carlson, No. 15-1385 (4th Cir. March 28, 2016). The case was filed after a builder – facing numerous construction defect claims and an arbitrator’s decision whether to certify those claims as a class proceeding – filed a ...

Since the Supreme Court’s decision in Wal-Mart, courts have been struggling to breathe life into Rule 23(b)(2) when monetary damages are a possibility. Wal-Mart held that back pay constituted the kind of individualized monetary relief that was hardly “incidental” to claims of injunctive relief, upon which (b)(2) classes are essentially founded. In Berry v. LexisNexis Risk and Information Analytics Group Inc., No. 14-2006 (4th Cir. Dec. 4, 2015), the Fourth Circuit grappled with this issue, albeit in the context of a nonmonetary (b)(2) settlement that, by its terms, continued to allow class members to pursue certain claims for monetary relief.

In an “opt out” class action, sending notice to class members following class certification is not only routine, but required by due process. But does a district court have the right to order notice prior to a decision on class certification? In Gardener v. GMAC, Inc., No. 14-208 (4th Cir. Aug. 6, 2015), both the district court and the Fourth Circuit “assumed for the sake of argument” that Rule 23(d)(1)(B) provides the trial court with that authority. But each declined to accept the plaintiffs' argument that the facts warranted such notice. Observing that pre-certification ...

The Fourth Circuit today handed down its second decision in Brown v. Nucor, a split decision from 2009. In the initial decision, over Judge Agee’s dissent, the panel majority had reversed the district court’s denial of class certification. On remand, the district court decided to revisit the certification decision in light of Wal-Mart v. Dukes, and decertified a class consisting of individuals who had not been promoted to supervisory positions. In a 154-page opinion, a split panel again reversed. Judge Gregory again wrote the majority decision, joined by Judge Keenan. Judge ...

Experian recently petitioned the Fourth Circuit to immediately review a district court’s order certifying an 88,000-member, nationwide class of consumers who requested Experian credit reports that listed accounts with the now-defunct Advanta Bank. In this case, Dreher v. Experian Information Solutions Inc., No. 14-325 (4th Cir. July 3, 2014), Experian requested an interlocutory appeal under Rule 23(f), contending that, among other things, the district court’s order that certified a class with members that had suffered no injury and found Rule 23’s predominance ...

Courts have understandably been reluctant to certify a class consisting of “persons who are injured by the defendant” or “individuals to whom the defendant is liable,” i.e., a class definition that depends on the outcome of the case. Such a “fail-safe” class is unfair to defendants:  if defendants win the case, there is no class that is bound by the result because the class consists solely of victors.

A West Virginia judge recently denied a former Dollar General employee her bid for class certification, finding the proposed class was fail-safe and therefore improper ...

Family Dollar, a national discount store retailer based in Charlotte, was sued by a putative class of female store managers alleging gender discrimination in pay in the Western District of North Carolina. In January 2012, Judge Cogburn dismissed the class claims, holding that they weren’t viable under Dukes v. Wal-Mart Stores Inc., 131 S. Ct. 2541 (2011). His ruling was consistent with plaintiffs’ own declaration earlier in the case: they said their claims were “virtually identical” to those in the Wal-Mart case after the Ninth Circuit’s favorable decision (but before ...

Particularly with the Supreme Court’s denial of cert in Whirlpool v. Glazer, U.S., No. 13-431, cert. denied 2/24/14, “issue certification” itself remains an unresolved issue. In Whirlpool, the Sixth Circuit affirmed the district court’s order granting class certification of claims for breach of warranty, negligent design, and negligent failure to warn under Ohio law for Whirlpool’s front-load washing machines. Whirlpool argued that class certification was improper because individual issues of liability and damages predominated with respect to the action as a ...