Duane Morris Class Action Review - 2023 - Report - Page 318
and thus the class could be certified, and the settlement approved. The district court
noted that while the absent class members had no viable claim in the Eleventh Circuit,
they did have such a claim in their respective circuits and thus would remain a member
of the nationwide settlement class. A putative class member thereafter objected to the
settlement by raising issues about the notice and alleged violations of the Class Action
Fairness Act. On appeal, the Eleventh Circuit reviewed whether it had subject matter
jurisdiction. It held that “the class definition does not meet Article III standing
requirements” and remanded the case “to give the parties an opportunity to revise the
class definition.” Id. at 1359. It also examined whether a district court could approve a
class settlement where only some of the class members had standing. The Eleventh
Circuit concluded that, under TransUnion LLC v. Ramirez, et al., 141 S. Ct. 2190
(2021), to recover individual damages, “all plaintiffs within the class definition must have
standing.” Id. at 1360. Rejecting the district court’s rationale, the Eleventh Circuit held
that “when a class seeks certification for the sole purpose of a damages settlement
under Rule 23(e), the class definition must be limited to those individuals who have
Article III standing.” In sum, it determined that every member of a class must have
Article III standing in order for the class to be certified for settlement purposes under
23(e).
Relatedly, courts are also apt to deny settlement approval where procedurally the
claims that are settled do not align with the pleadings and the case theories within the
operative complaint. For that very reason, the court in Rivera, et al. v. Marriott
International, Inc., 2022 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 191238 (C.D. Cal. Oct. 19, 2022), denied the
parties’ proposed class-wide settlement. The plaintiff filed a class action alleging
violation of the California Labor Code and Business and Professions Code by
Defendant and on individual basis and representative basis pursuant to the Private
Attorneys General Act (PAGA). The plaintiff asserted claims for failure to pay all wages
due, failure to provide meal periods, failure to provide rest periods, failure to pay wages
of terminated or resigned employees, failure to issue itemized wage statements and
records, and unfair business practices. Following the filing of the plaintiff’s third
amended complaint, his counsel submitted a declaration stating that plaintiff only
wanted to proceed on an individual basis and by way of a representative proceeding
pursuant to the PAGA and for the court to permit dismissal of the class allegations.
Subsequently, the parties settled the matter and plaintiff filed a motion for preliminary
settlement approval. The court denied the motion. The plaintiff acknowledged that the
court previously had dismissed the class allegations in the matter. The court therefore
determined that without any class allegations in the case, it could not conditionally grant
class certification for settlement purposes, or grant preliminary approval of a class
action settlement. For these reasons, the court denied the plaintiff’s motion.
Finally, in Murray, et al. v. Grocery Delivery E-Services USA Inc., 2022 U.S. App. LEXIS
34831 (1st Cir. Dec. 16, 2022), the plaintiffs filed a class action alleging that the
defendant, a meal delivery service, violated the Telephone Consumer Protection Act
(TCPA) by making unsolicited calls: (i) using an auto-dialer; (ii) to members on the
national do-not-call registry (NDNC); or (iii) calling people who were on the defendant’s
internal do-not-call list. The parties eventually settled the matter for $14 million, with
equal settlement payments going to each class member regardless of their category.
317
© Duane Morris LLP 2023
Duane Morris Class Action Review – 2023
