Viability of Nationwide Class Actions and Settlements in Light of Contracted Federal Jurisdiction and Standing

Description

Many assumptions about the benefits of filing, and best strategies for settling or defending, nationwide class actions have been upended in recent years, calling into question their viability and practicality.

First, the question whether plaintiffs from multiple states can establish personal jurisdiction in a single federal forum in cases against defendants who are neither based nor incorporated in the state where suit is brought continues to be a thorny issue. Three circuit courts have offered three different responses to Bristol-Myers Squibb Co. v. Superior Court of California, 137 S.Ct. 1773 (2017), and courts continue to grapple with the limits of personal jurisdiction in the wake of Ford Motor Co. v. Montana Eighth Judicial Dist., 140 S.Ct. 1017 (2021).

Second, the Supreme Court’s recent decision about Article III standing in TransUnion L.L.C. v. Ramirez, 141 S.Ct. 2190 (2021), could keep plaintiffs out of federal court, but may have made large-scale settlements more difficult and less beneficial, thereby potentially increasing the number of lawsuits defendants must face. If TransUnion means that a settlement class may contain only members with standing under the laws of the forum state, not only is there less peace to be bought and sold, but parties may now also be forced into significant and expensive upfront discovery about absent class members' standing. Both sides will need to consider new strategies.

Listen as this experienced panel of class action lawyers discusses whether nationwide class actions remain a viable option for plaintiffs and how recent developments may affect defendants’ strategies.