U.S. Supreme Court

Case Status


Docket Number


Cert. Denied


Questions Presented

1. Whether the standing requirements of Article III apply to all members of a class certified under
Rule 23.

2.  Whether certifying a class under Rule 23(b)(3) is improper where individualized damages issues predominate, and where plaintiffs rely exclusively on aggregate damages models that calculate damages purportedly incurred by the class as a whole, rather than by individual class members.

Case Updates

Cert. petition denied

March 02, 2015

U.S. Chamber files amicus brief in class certification case

December 19, 2014

In the coalition brief, the Chamber asked the U.S. Supreme Court to grant certiorari and review a Sixth Circuit ruling which upheld a class certification. The brief argues that the class certification requirements of Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23 are not merely conveniences for streamlining litigation, but rather, are crucial safeguards grounded in fundamental notions of due process. The brief asserts that before a plaintiff may take advantage of the class action device, they must prove that the putative class members’ claims present at least one “common question” that, if adjudicated on a classwide basis, “will resolve an issue that is central to the validity of each one of the claims in one stroke.” Wal-Mart Stores, Inc. v. Dukes, 131 S. Ct. 2541, 2551 (2011). The courts below improperly relaxed the requirements for class certification in at least two respects: First, the Sixth Circuit affirmed the district court’s certification decision, even though the certified class includes a significant number of individuals who were not injured by any defendant’s conduct and, therefore, do not have standing under Article III of the U.S. Constitution. Second, the Sixth Circuit approved class certification on the theory that an aggregate damages model – one that calculates average damages for the class as a whole – satisfies Rule 23’s predominance requirement. The brief goes on to point out that the lower court's decisions in this case not only violates the Supreme Court’s precedents, but also deepens the division in lower court authority over the requirements for class certification. Finally the brief highlights that this case presents an excellent opportunity for the Court to resolve existing splits in lower court authority, address ongoing abuses in class-action litigation, and to restore proper constitutional limitations on lawsuits which involve no-injury plaintiffs.

The brief was filed jointly with the National Association of Manufacturers.

Ashley C. Parrish and David M. Barnes of King & Spalding LLP represented the U.S. Chamber of Commerce as co-counsel to the U.S. Chamber Litigation Center in this case.

Case Documents