Highlights from this issue include:
- Standing. The D.C. Circuit held that plaintiffs do not have Article III standing to appeal an adverse class certification decision after those individual plaintiffs prevail in their individual suit. It held the asserted right to represent the interests of absent class members is not, alone, sufficient to confer Article III standing because Rule 23 creates no substantive rights and so, “[o]nce unmoored from any real-world consequences” to the plaintiffs, the alleged misapplication of Rule 23 was no more than a “bare procedural violation, divorced from any concrete harm.” (Note: there is a circuit split on this issue. See Jim v. Shanghai Original, Inc., 990 F.3d 251 (2d Cir. 2021).
- Administrative Feasibility. The Federal Circuit held that administrative feasibility was not part of the ascertainability requirement but instead was part of the superiority analysis.
