Posted in Class Action Decisions, Data Privacy Class Actions, Federal Court Decisions, tagged breach, class action, class certification, common issues, damages, data breach, data breach class action, financial institution, injury, issuing bank, magnuson, minnesota, privacy class action, target on September 16, 2015|
Leave a Comment »
Yesterday, U.S. District Judge Paul Magnuson issued an order granting certification in the consolidated MDL proceeding brought on behalf of issuing banks claiming damages resulting from Target’s 2013 payment card hacking incident. Click Here for a copy of the order. The BakerHostetler Class Action Lawsuit Defense Blog will feature a more detailed write-up on the decision soon.
In the way of initial reaction, I don’t think the decision will be impactful in cases outside the specific context of issuing bank class actions against retailers in payment card breach cases because of unique issues having to do with common injury and causation of loss. In particular, in evaluating whether variations in injury and causation should prevent certification, Judge Magnuson distinguished the issuing bank case from the class actions brought on behalf of individual consumers arising from the same breach. Judge Magnuson observed that while the injuries alleged by consumers are largely potential future injuries that may or may not occur, the banks claimed to have already suffered concrete injuries in the form of the cost of reissuing cards to customers. Thus, he reasoned that the any individualized issues regarding causation and injury were not present with regard to the financial institutions’ claims, and any issues regarding variations in the amount of damages did not prevent class certification. This distinction means that the decision will be of limited value to plaintiffs in consumer data breach class actions.
Read Full Post »
Posted in Articles, Practice Tips, tagged class action, class certification, damages, data breach, data breach class action, data privacy, injury, invasion of privacy, practical law, practice tip, privacy, privacy class action, standing on October 16, 2014|
Leave a Comment »
Anyone still checking this site will have noticed a complete lack of new content lately, which is mostly the result of pure laziness on my part but partially due to the demands of several other writing projects I’ve been working on. I’m pleased to announce that one of these articles it out, and the folks at Practical Law the Journal have graciously given permission for me to post a reprint here. Click the following link to view the article, entitled Key Issues in Data Breach Litigation, which is featured in the October 2014 issue. Please be sure to visit the Practical Law website to learn how to subscribe to more great content on timely legal topics.
Also, speaking of data privacy litigation, I’ll be part of a panel presenting on the topic at the ABA Institute on Class Actions next week in Chicago. It’s not too late to register.
Read Full Post »
Posted in Class Action Decisions, Consumer Class Actions, rule 23, Supreme Court Decisions, tagged butler, causation, class action, class certification, class-wide, classwide, damages, injury, liability, moldy, posner, predominance, rule 23, scalia, sears, washing machine, whirlpool on August 23, 2013|
2 Comments »
One of the key questions in the aftermath of the Supreme Court’s recent decision in Comcast Corp. v. Behrend is the extent to which damages must be susceptible to classwide calculation in order to justify class certification. In particular, the question is as follows: When the Comcast Court held that class certification was improper because the plaintiff had failed to demonstrate that “damages are capable of measurement on a classwide basis,” did it mean that Rule 23(b)(3) certification is never proper if damages cannot be determined on a classwide basis? If the answer to this question is yes, then consumer class actions are in trouble because it’s a rare case where classwide determination of damages is possible. But if the answer to this question is no, then as the Comcast dissent suggested, “the opinion breaks no new ground on the standard for certifying a class action under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23(b)(3).”
Yesterday, in the second of two moldy washing machine class actions that had been vacated and remanded for further consideration in light of Comcast, the Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals joined the Sixth Circuit in answering “no” to this question. In Butler v. Sears, Roebuck & Co., Nos. 11-8029, 12-8030 (7th Cir., Aug. 22, 2013) (Posner, J.), the court reaffirmed its earlier decision that if common issues predominate over individualized issues in resolving the question of liability, then a class can be certified even if the question damages would require individual determinations. As usual, Judge Posner’s decision is colorful and an interesting read, even for those who disagree with the outcome. The Sixth Circuit’s decision, which was issued last month, is In re Whirlpool Corp. Front‐Loading Washer Products Liability Litigation, No. 10-4188 (6th Cir. July 18, 2013).
In evaluating the potential broader impact of the Sixth and Seventh Circuit’s decisions, it is important to maintain a clear distinction between the question of damages and the related questions of injury and causation of damages. Courts have long accepted that individualized damages questions do not prevent class certification, and the moldy washer decisions themselves break little new ground other than to interpret Comcast as not having altered that longstanding principle. However, saying that individualized questions of damages can be left for a later proceeding is very different than saying that there is a good reason to certify a class when the elements necessary to prove liability itself (which typically include both the existence of injury and causation) cannot all be resolved on a classwide basis. Individualized questions of whether a given class member has suffered any compensable injury at all or whether the allegedly wrongful conduct caused any alleged injury should still defeat predominance, and neither Sears nor Whirlpool should be read to suggest differently. In those cases, because the plaintiffs had advanced what these courts concluded was a viable theory of common injury, the only individualized questions related to the amount of, and not the existence of, damages. See In re Whirlpool Corp., slip op. at 22 (“Because all Duet owners were injured at the point of sale upon paying a premium price for the Duets as designed, even those owners who have not experienced a mold problem are properly included within the certified class.)
Read Full Post »