PRACTITIONER BLOG
Read our analyses of developments in Impact Litigation and stay current on class action law
West Virginia Can No Longer Discriminate Against Transgender Medicaid Participants
On August 2, 2022, federal District Court Judge Robert C. Chambers granted affirmative summary judgment for Plaintiffs in Fain et al. v. Crouch et. al, and ruled that West Virginia could no longer discriminate against transgender Medicaid participants by excluding coverage for gender-confirming surgical care. In their complaint, Plaintiffs alleged that West Virginia state health insurance plans deprive transgender people of essential, and sometimes life-saving, health care.
Uninjured Class Members - How Many Is Too Many? Ninth Circuit Weighs In On Class Action Article III Standing
So how exactly does Article III work in a class action? It is generally understood that, at the outset of a class action, Article III standing is determined based on the claims of the named plaintiffs. At the tail end, if the case goes to judgment, unnamed class members must prove an Article III injury in order to receive damages. But what about in the middle of the case? What about at class certification?
Ninth Circuit Rules on Article III Class Action Standing in Favor of Plaintiffs in Ramirez v. TransUnion
Given the issues, I expect the defendant will be filing en banc and cert petitions. While the buzz on the case is on punitive damages, I think the Article III standing issues will be the heart of future disputes. The first piece of good news is that the facts in the case are very sympathetic for the plaintiffs, which will be helpful going forward. In brief, TransUnion incorrectly placed terrorist alerts on the front page of consumer credit reports for approximately 8000 individuals.
Third Circuit Rules Plaintiff Must Have “a fair opportunity” to move for class cert
Good news for plaintiffs in a Third Circuit decision on mootness in a Rule 23(b)(2) injunctive relief class action, Richardson v. Bledsoe, No. 15-2876 (3d Cir. July 15, 2016). This case presents a variation of the Campbell-Ewald named plaintiff pick-off strategy in a systemic reform case. It recognizes a “picking off” exception to mootness in a class action where the individual claim for relief is “acutely susceptible to mootness” by the actions of the defendant. This one takes a bit of explaining.