En Banc Ninth Circuit Clarifies That Settlement Classes Are Not Held to Same Standard as Litigated Classes

07 June 2019 Consumer Class Defense Counsel Blog
Authors: Michael D. Leffel Jonathan W. Garlough Jaikaran Singh

Sometimes, the strict rules governing certification of a class action under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23 can actually hinder settlement of a class, even if the parties agree that this is the best result. Yesterday, the Ninth Circuit issued an en banc decision in In re Hyundai and Kia Fuel Economy Litigation that makes it a little easier to resolve nationwide class actions, and clarifies that the standards for certification are different (more relaxed) in the settlement context.

As we reported here earlier, a panel of the Ninth Circuit previously vacated a district court’s approval of a nationwide class action settlement because the district court failed to address choice-of-law issues and variations in relevant state laws, and also improperly “presumed” reliance on allegedly “misleading advertising.” The case demonstrates the significant obstacles to certifying a nationwide class. That decision was written by Judge Jacqueline H. Nguyen with a dissent by Judge Sandra S. Ikuta. Yesterday, their roles were reversed.

Judge Nguyen wrote a majority panel opinion for the court sitting en banc that upheld the nationwide settlement, and made clear that the standards for certifying a class action are different when a case is being litigated and when it is being settled.

As the court explained (citations omitted), the factors relevant to predominance under Rule 23 “must be considered in light of the reason for which certification is sought—litigation or settlement—which ‘is relevant to a class certification.’” “[I]n deciding whether to certify a settlement-only class, ‘a district court need not inquire whether the case, if tried, would present intractable management problems.’” Slip op. at 35.

In short, some classes can be certified for settlement purposes, even if they could not be certified for litigation. Thus, the Ninth Circuit’s new decision tamps down some of the fears that were raised after issuance of the panel decision about the inability to settle nationwide classes.

Notably, counsel for plaintiffs in many litigated class actions will cite as support for certification court orders that certify a class for settlement purposes only. Yesterday’s decision also makes plain the limited persuasive value of such orders when the proposed class is being certified for ongoing litigation (as opposed to settlement).

This blog is made available by Foley & Lardner LLP (“Foley” or “the Firm”) for informational purposes only. It is not meant to convey the Firm’s legal position on behalf of any client, nor is it intended to convey specific legal advice. Any opinions expressed in this article do not necessarily reflect the views of Foley & Lardner LLP, its partners, or its clients. Accordingly, do not act upon this information without seeking counsel from a licensed attorney. This blog is not intended to create, and receipt of it does not constitute, an attorney-client relationship. Communicating with Foley through this website by email, blog post, or otherwise, does not create an attorney-client relationship for any legal matter. Therefore, any communication or material you transmit to Foley through this blog, whether by email, blog post or any other manner, will not be treated as confidential or proprietary. The information on this blog is published “AS IS” and is not guaranteed to be complete, accurate, and or up-to-date. Foley makes no representations or warranties of any kind, express or implied, as to the operation or content of the site. Foley expressly disclaims all other guarantees, warranties, conditions and representations of any kind, either express or implied, whether arising under any statute, law, commercial use or otherwise, including implied warranties of merchantability, fitness for a particular purpose, title and non-infringement. In no event shall Foley or any of its partners, officers, employees, agents or affiliates be liable, directly or indirectly, under any theory of law (contract, tort, negligence or otherwise), to you or anyone else, for any claims, losses or damages, direct, indirect special, incidental, punitive or consequential, resulting from or occasioned by the creation, use of or reliance on this site (including information and other content) or any third party websites or the information, resources or material accessed through any such websites. In some jurisdictions, the contents of this blog may be considered Attorney Advertising. If applicable, please note that prior results do not guarantee a similar outcome. Photographs are for dramatization purposes only and may include models. Likenesses do not necessarily imply current client, partnership or employee status.

Related Services

Insights

RCE PTA Carve-Out Resumes After Interference
18 September 2019
PharmaPatents
Upcoming Webinar: Maximizing Solar Tax Credits - Navigating the Start of Construction Rules (Part 1)
17 September 2019
Renewable Energy Outlook
When Birds Finally Find a Nest
17 September 2019
Dashboard Insights
DHS Moves Closer to Launching its H-1B Cap Registration System
16 September 2019
Labor & Employment Law Perspectives
MedTech Impact Expo & Conference
13-15 December 2019
Las Vegas, NV
Review of 2020 Medicare Changes for Telehealth
11 December 2019
Member Call
BRG Healthcare Leadership Conference
06 December 2019
Washington, D.C.
CTeL Telehealth Fall Summit 2019
04-06 December 2019
Washington, D.C.