Tag Archives: Class Representatives

United States Supreme Court Questions Whether A Rule 23(b)(2) Class Can Challenge the Failure to Provide Noncitizens Bail Hearings

View David Wright's Complete Bio at robinsonbradshaw.comThe United States Supreme Court, in a 5-3 decision authored by Justice Alito, reversed a Ninth Circuit case concluding that detained aliens have a statutory right to periodic bond hearings during the course of their extended detention.  See Jennings v. Rodriguez,  ____ U.S. ____, No. 15-1204 (U.S. Feb. 27, 2018).  The Court found that the Ninth Circuit’s statutory interpretation in favor of detained noncitizens was “implausible.”  In pedagogical fashion, Justice Alito explained that the Ninth Circuit had turned the doctrine of “constitutional avoidance” on its head:  “Spotting a constitutional issue does not give a court the authority to rewrite a statute as it pleases.”  We don’t take sides, in this space, about the merits of this issue, but thought the Court’s observations about class certification were worth a mention.

The class certification rulings in Jennings have a storied history.  In June 2007, the named plaintiff filed a motion for class certification, which the district court denied in a two-sentence order.  Rodriguez appealed this order to the Ninth Circuit.  The appellate panel, noting the dearth of reasoning by the district judge, decided to “evaluate for [themselves] whether the class should be certified.”  The Ninth Circuit, without having the benefit of Wal-Mart Stores, Inc. v. Dukes, 564 U.S. 338 (2011), brushed aside the Rule 23(a) commonality challenge, focused on the utility of answering “comprehensively in a class setting” the constitutionality of class members’ detention, and proposed establishment of subclasses to deal with differing statutory schemes applicable to the class.  On remand, the district court certified a class under Rule 23(b)(2), and established four subclasses.  The Ninth Circuit, on interlocutory review of that ruling, sustained certification of three of the four subclasses.

In its opinion, the Supreme Court questioned whether the provisions of 8 U.S.C. § 1252(f)(1) precluded the lower courts from granting injunctive relief, citing the Supreme Court’s decision in Reno v. American–Arab Anti-Discrimination Comm., 525 U.S. 471 (1999) (Section 1252(f)(1) “prohibits federal courts from granting classwide injunctive relief” against the operation of §§ 1221-1232 of Title 8 of the U.S. Code).  Rule 23(b)(2) applies only when final injunctive relief or corresponding declaratory relief is appropriate for the class as a whole, as Justice Alito emphasized in his own italics. The majority also directed the Ninth Circuit to “consider whether a Rule 23(b)(2) class action continues to be the appropriate vehicle” in light of the Wal-Mart decision, noting that – in Wal-Mart – the Court held that “Rule 23(b)(2) applies only when a single injunction or declaratory judgment would provide relief to each member of the class.”  Because the Ninth Circuit had already concluded that some of the class members “may not be entitled to bond hearings,” the Supreme Court observed that “it may no longer be true” that the complained-of “conduct is such that it can be enjoined or declared unlawful only as to all of the class members or as to none of them.”  The Court also expressed doubt as to whether due process claims could be resolved on a class-wide basis, given prior holdings that “due process is flexible” and “calls for such procedural protections as the particular situation demands.”

Justice Breyer, in dissent, took issue with the suggestion that Wal-Mart precluded class certification.  He observed that every class member was after the same thing, a bail hearing, “and the differences in situation among members of the class are not relevant to their entitlement to a bail hearing.”

The Ninth Circuit’s track record at the Supreme Court is well known.  And the import of the majority’s instructions regarding the appropriateness of class certification here is fairly plain, at least to us.  But whether and to what extent the lower courts will “take a hint” remains to be seen.

Court Denies Attempt to Recast ERISA Class Action as a Derivative Claim

View David Wright's Complete Bio at robinsonbradshaw.comAccording to the Company website, “Piggly Wiggly has been bringing home the bacon for millions of American families for over 100 years.” But a putative class of former employees of Piggly Wiggly filed a class action complaint in the District of South Carolina, asserting various claims under ERISA pertaining to the Company’s employee stock ownership plan. The claims include allegations pertaining to excessive compensation, “gross mismanagement,” concealing of financial losses from participants, and various “insider dealings.” Spires v. Schools, No. 2:16-616 (D.S.C. 2016). The scheme culminated, according to Plaintiffs, in the sale of substantially all assets to C&W Wholesale Grocers, Inc. The case was filed under Rule 23 as a class action, not under Rule 23.1 as a derivative action.

Eighteen months into the case, and after the district court had trimmed the complaint, Plaintiffs attempted to switch gears, moving to proceed without class certification and instead as a derivative action under ERISA Section 502(a). But Judge Gergel would have none of it in a decision rendered on November 17. After first observing that a benefit plan may not have standing under ERISA to assert claims for a breach of fiduciary duty, the Court held that “allowing a class action to proceed as a derivative action would unfairly shift to Defendants the burden of proving or disproving the adequacy of the named Plaintiffs as representatives” of the class. The Court observed that the “complaint has nearly one hundred references to ‘class,’ ‘class members’ and the ‘class period.’” According to the Court, plaintiffs did not “even attempt to show cause why, having chosen to file a class action, they nonetheless should be excused from ‘jump[ing] through the procedural hoops’ of prosecuting a class action.”

The case serves as a good reminder of the “stickiness” of filing under Rule 23. After you do that, it isn’t so easy to extricate yourself.

Is an Institutional Investor Subject to the PSLRA’s “Professional Plaintiff” Bar?

View David Wright's Complete Bio at robinsonbradshaw.comThe Private Securities Litigation Reform Act (“PSLRA”) establishes special rules in securities class actions. One such rule, found in 15 U.S.C. Sect. 78u-4(a)(3)(B)(vi) and known as the “Five-in-Three Provision,” prevents a “person” from serving as a lead plaintiff in “more than 5 securities class actions” during any three-year period. Does that rule, though, apply to institutional investors? The plain words of the statute certainly suggest so—it is difficult to argue that an institutional investor is not a “person,” and had Congress wanted to exclude institutional investors from this prohibition, it could easily have done so. The Arkansas Teacher Retirement System, an active lead plaintiff, lost this issue in the Eastern District of Virginia last fall, when Judge Ellis found that the statutory language was clear. See Knurr v. Orbitral ATK, Inc., No. 1:16-cv-1031, 2016 WL 661157 (E.D. Va. Nov. 10, 2016) (noting that “it is doubtful that Congress would have hidden a major exemption in a single word,” echoing Justice Scalia’s phrase that “Congress . . . does not . . . hide elephants in mouseholes”).

But, as Judge Ellis also acknowledged, “one purpose of the [PSLRA] is to encourage institutional investors to serve as lead plaintiff.” And the House Conference Report pertaining to the PSLRA states that “institutional investors seeking to serve as lead plaintiff may need to exceed [the limit of lead plaintiffs] and do not represent the type of professional plaintiff this legislation seeks to restrict.” H.R. Conf. Rep. 104-369, at 35 (1995). So how to square this tension?

Recently, in Ollila v. Babcock & Wilcox Enterprises, Inc., No. 3:17-cv-109 (W.D.N.C. May 25, 2017), Judge Cogburn acknowledged these competing lines of authority but ultimately side-stepped the issue. Arkansas Teacher Retirement System, which had lost its argument to serve as lead plaintiff in Knurr, had better success with Judge Cogburn. Judge Cogburn found Knurr “persuasive,” but found “similarly persuasive” “the number of other district court cases that have held that institutional investors are not subject to the ‘five-in-three’ limitation.” Indeed, Judge Cogburn cited case law emphasizing that “the ‘majority’ view is that institutional investors are not subject to the professional plaintiff ‘three-in-five’ bar.”

Ultimately, Judge Cogburn took refuge in a section of the PSLRA that permits the court to override the “professional plaintiff limitation.” See 15 U.S.C. Sect. 78u-4(a)(3)(B)(vi). The putative financial losses of ATRS, which exceeded $5 million in the case, “dwarf[ed] those alleged by the competing institutional plaintiff,” leading the court to exercise its discretion to appoint ATRS as lead plaintiff even in the face of its activism in shareholder class actions across the country.

It remains to be seen whether the textual argument of Judge Ellis will ultimately hold sway in the Fourth Circuit.

Is a Class Representative Adequate if He Waives Viable Claims in Order to Preserve Commonality?

View David Wright's Complete Bio at robinsonbradshaw.comClass actions don’t work if the class representative has a conflict with the class he or she purportedly represents. As the United States Supreme Court noted over 70 years ago, “a selection of representatives for purposes of litigation, whose substantial interests are not necessarily or even probably the same as those whom they are deemed to represent, does not afford that protection to absent parties which due process requires.” Hansberry v. Lee, 311 U.S. 32, 45 (1940). A decision this week from Judge Higginson out of the Fifth Circuit provides an interesting commentary on this subject in the context of a consumer class action.

In Slade v. Progressive Insurance Co., No. 15-30010 (5th Cir. May 9, 2017), plaintiffs claimed that Progressive Insurance shorted its insureds when paying for vehicle losses. Progressive used something called “WorkCenter Total Loss” to calculate the base value of total loss vehicles. Plaintiffs said that “lawful sources” – such as the NADA Guidebook or the Kelly Blue Book – had higher values and therefore resulted in plaintiffs “receiving lower payouts on their insurance claims.”

The Fifth Circuit treated with dispatch a couple of aspects of the district court’s class certification decision. First, the Court held that the damages theory was in fact “class wide,” and therefore consistent with Comcast v. Behrend, 133 S. Ct. 1426 (2013). Second, the district court had inexplicably certified a fraud class. As the Court of Appeals observed, “[t]his court has held consistently that a ‘fraud class action cannot be certified when individual reliance will be an issue.’”

But the bulk of Judge Higginson’s opinion discusses a more complicated issue. The insurance company used two basic factors to determine a vehicle’s value. First, it used a “base value” based on the WorkCenter Total Loss calculation. Second, it used a “condition adjustment,” recognizing that the value of the automobile in question might have either a higher or lower value based on its particular condition. The former sounds like a class-wide issue, but the latter looks to be quite individualistic.

Recognizing this dilemma, the named plaintiffs decided not to challenge the “condition adjustment.” As the Court of Appeals observed, “Plaintiffs’ class certification motion may have run into predominance problems because condition adjustments appear to be highly individualized.” But this waiver, the Fifth Circuit noted, comes with a potential cost. Although the plaintiffs’ waiver solved the predominance problems, it raised questions about the adequacy of the class representatives. “When the class representative proposes waiving some of the class’s claims, the decision risks creating an irreconcilable conflict with the class.” As the Court observed, citing a Seventh Circuit opinion, “A representative can’t throw away what would be a major component of the class’s recovery.”

But simply because a class plaintiff decides, as a strategic matter, to waive a claim does not necessarily mean she is inadequate. The court must inquire into, at least, “(1) the risk that unnamed class members will forfeit their right to pursue the waived claim in future litigation”; (2) the value of the waived claim; and (3) the strategic value of the waiver, which can include the value of proceeding as a class (if the waiver is key to certification).” In its opinion, the Fifth Circuit directed the district court to undertaken this analysis on remand. A central aspect of this inquiry is the res judicata effect of the waiver, which the Fifth Circuit said was “uncertain here.” Indeed, the Court observed that “courts have inconsistently applied claim preclusion to class actions.”

The Court of Appeals provided a bit of a road-map to the district court, identifying – as possible options on remand –

  • declining to certify the class because of preclusion risks
  • certifying the class, but tailoring the notice and opt-out procedure to alert the class to the risk of preclusion
  • concluding that the benefits of proceeding as a class outweigh any preclusion risks or
  • defining the class in a way to exclude individuals who have a quarrel with the condition adjustment.

Stay tuned, and consider carefully how class representatives and courts resolve the tension between waiving the claims of absent class members and strategically limiting the class to claims that can actually be certified.

Can a Class Action Proceed when the Named Plaintiff’s Claim Becomes Moot? A Recent View from the North Carolina Business Court

View Mark Hiller’s Complete Bio at robinsonbradshaw.comIn this post we talk about two of our favorite things (relatively speaking): class actions and mootness.  We last looked at these issues when covering the U.S. Supreme Court’s decision in Campbell-Ewald Company v. Gomez, 136 S. Ct. 663 (2016).  There, the Court rejected the defendant’s attempt to “pick off” the named plaintiff in a class action case.  The defendant had made a Rule 68 offer to settle the case for the full value of the plaintiff’s claim.  The plaintiff declined, but the defendant argued that its offer nonetheless mooted the claim.  The Supreme Court rejected that argument, holding that an unaccepted Rule 68 offer does not moot a claim—at least if the defendant does not deposit the Rule 68 money with the court.

But what if the named plaintiff’s claim does become moot?  Can the case stay alive based on the claims of the class?  The Supreme Court has been wrestling with that question for decades, and the answer turns in large part on timing—when did the named plaintiff’s claim become moot?  If it became moot after the class was certified, then the class action is not rendered moot because, at that point, the class has acquired a legal status independent of the plaintiff’s.  See Sosna v. Iowa, 419 U.S. 393 (1975).  The same rule applies if the named plaintiff’s claim became moot after the trial court denied class certification.  If the denial is later reversed, the reversal will relate back to the time of the trial court’s erroneous certification decision.  See U.S. Parole Comm’n v. Geraghty, 445 U.S. 388 (1980).  In both of these situations, the named plaintiff had a live claim at the time the trial court ruled on certification.

That leaves open a third scenario: a named plaintiff whose claim becomes moot before the trial court makes any certification ruling.  What then?  Chief Judge Gale of the North Carolina Business Court faced this question in the recent case of Chambers v. Moses H. Cone Memorial Hospital.  To simplify the facts and procedural history, the plaintiff received emergency treatment at a hospital and then objected to the amount of the bill he received.  The plaintiff claimed that the hospital charged uninsured patients, like himself, more for emergency services than the hospital charged its insured patients.  He brought a class action complaint on behalf of himself and other uninsured patients who received emergency services at the hospital.  His initial complaint alleged common law claims and sought damages.  But he later amended the complaint to seek only a declaratory judgment that the hospital may collect only “reasonable payments” for its emergency services, rather than the “regular rates” the hospital charged in its form contract.

Judge Gale first held that the plaintiff’s declaratory judgment claim was moot because the hospital was not seeking to recover the unpaid amount of the plaintiff’s bill.  (The hospital had been seeking to do so earlier in the case, but the hospital dismissed its counterclaims with prejudice after the plaintiff dropped his damages claims.)

That left the more difficult question: Even though the plaintiff no longer had a live claim, could the case continue based on the claim of the putative class?  Judge Gale began by noting that the case did not come within the holdings of Sosna or Geraghty because the court had not ruled on certification at the time the plaintiff’s claim became moot.  (It appears the plaintiff had not yet filed a certification motion.)

Judge Gale then addressed whether the putative class claim could proceed based on an exception to the mootness doctrine for claims that are “so inherently transitory that the trial court will not have even enough time to rule on a motion for class certification before the proposed representative’s individual interest expires.”  Judge Gale explained that the classic example of an “inherently transitory” claim was one that inevitably becomes moot with the passage of time, such as a challenge to pretrial detention.  In those cases, dismissing a case as moot would mean that no plaintiff could challenge the defendant’s conduct, because any plaintiff’s individual claim would become moot before the case could be fully litigated.  Judge Gale said that the plaintiff’s claim—challenging the hospital’s emergency-services rates for uninsured patients—doesn’t fit into that passage-of-time category for “inherently transitory” claims.

But that left another possibility—one that circles us back to Campbell-Ewald: Can a claim be “inherently transitory” when the claim becomes moot, not because it is time-sensitive, but because the defendant has “picked off” the claim by offering to pay its full amount before the trial court makes a decision on certification?  Judge Gale noted that the Ninth Circuit has applied the “inherently transitory” exception in this scenario (as have several other federal circuit courts).  But ultimately, Judge Gale did not have to decide whether to follow this interpretation of the “inherently transitory” exception, because he concluded that there was no evidence showing that the hospital tried to pick off the plaintiff’s claim.  To the contrary, Judge Gale stated, the plaintiff’s claim became moot only when the plaintiff decided to dismiss his claims seeking damages.  Judge Gale agreed with the hospital that, had the plaintiff maintained those claims, then the hospital’s dismissal of its counterclaims “would not have mooted [plaintiff’s] declaratory claim.”


So, what to take away from all this?

First, class action law is complicated, especially when mootness is thrown into the mix.

Second, the law is pretty clear that a class action is not rendered moot when the named plaintiff has a live claim at the time the trial court decides whether to certify the class.

Third, the law is less clear whether the class action is rendered moot when the named plaintiff’s claim becomes moot before the trial court makes a certification decision.  In that scenario, the issues will likely focus on whether the case fits into exceptions to the mootness doctrine, such as the “inherently transitory” exception discussed above.

Fourth, there will likely be continued developments in the law as to whether a defendant’s effort to pick off a named plaintiff succeeds in mooting the plaintiff’s claim, and if so, whether that effort satisfies the “inherently transitory” exception such that a live case or controversy still exists.

We’ll keep you updated as the law develops.