Proposed Changes to Class Action Rules Covering Notice, Settlements, Objections, and Appeals Awaiting Approval of Congress
Time 3 Minute Read
Categories: Class Actions

The Supreme Court recently approved substantial changes to the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, including amendments to Rule 23, which covers federal class actions.  The amendments to Rule 23 seek to modernize and standardize the notice, settlement, objection, and appeal procedures.  If Congress approves the amendments, they will become effective December 1, 2018.     

 Under the amended Rule 23, parties seeking preliminary approval  must meet an arguably higher burden than is currently in place.  Among other things, the parties must “ establish that the court “will likely be able to approve the proposal” and “certify the class for purposes of judgment on the proposal.”   In order to meet this burden, the parties seeking preliminary approval of the settlement may need to engage in more extensive class discovery than was the case under the current preliminary approval standard that tends to focus on class size, the contents of the draft notice, and distribution of the funds.

The amendments also establish new criteria that courts must consider in determining whether a settlement proposal is “fair, reasonable, and adequate” under Rule 23(e)(2).  Specifically, courts must consider whether “class representatives and class counsel have adequately represented the class”; whether the settlement was “negotiated at arm’s length”; whether the relief provided for the class is adequate (taking into account such factors as costs, risks, and effectiveness of the proposed method of distributing relief to the class, among others); and whether “class members are treated equitably relative to each other.”  Many federal courts already analyze many of these factors, but the amendments would make these factors mandatory.

The amendments seek to modernize class notice by allowing notice by “electronic means, or other appropriate means” for any class certified under Rule 23(b)(3), as well as any settlement class preliminarily approved by the court under Rule 23 (e)(3).  This may do away with the requirement, in most cases, that class members receive notice by mail.

The proposed amendment would also modify Rule 23(e)(5) to clarify what must be included in an objection to a proposed settlement.  Under the amended rule, any objection must state whether it applies “only to the  objector, to a specific subset of the class, or to the entire class,” and also must state “with specificity” the grounds for the objection.

Finally, regarding the appellate process, the proposed amendment to Rule 23(f) would allow interlocutory appeals only after class certification has been decided, and would not allow an appeal from an order to give notice under Rule 23(e)(1).

  • Partner

    Ryan has a national practice focused on representing employers and executives in complex labor and employment litigation.  Ryan’s litigation experience is both broad and deep, and he is particularly skilled in defending ...

  • Counsel

    Michael represents corporate clients in all manner of labor and employment matters, including non-compete and trade secret litigation, wrongful termination, wage and hour disputes, and union organizing.  Michael also advises ...

You May Also Be Interested In

Time 4 Minute Read

When there is a willful violation to the Fair Credit Reporting Act (”FCRA”) consumers can recover either actual damages sustained by the consumer or statutory damages of no less than $100 and not more than $1000. (Punitive damages and attorney fees also are available).  There has been a trend in the district courts examining whether plaintiffs must prove that they suffered actual damage in order to recover statutory damages. Since 2007 several Circuits have reviewed this argument and each has explained that the provision for statutory damages does not require a showing of “actual damages.” The Eleventh Circuit is the most recent to weigh in on this question in Santos v. Healthcare Revenue Recovery Grp., and agrees with its sister Circuits.

Time 5 Minute Read

Tyson Foods, Inc. (“Tyson”) is no stranger to religious accommodation lawsuits over the impact of its COVID-19 vaccine mandate given its continued efforts to operate through the height of the pandemic in 2021—but the battle just heated up with a proposed class action complaint filed in the Eastern District of Arkansas.

Time 4 Minute Read

In Harris et. al. v. Medical Transportation Management, Inc. et. al., the D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals held that a putative class cannot be certified as an “issue” class under Rule 23(c)(4) without also satisfying the requirements in Rule 23(a) and (b).  This ruling is important because it prohibits putative classes from using the “issue” class mechanism of Rule 23(c)(4) to skirt the important procedural requirements in Rule 23(a) and (b) that are meant to protect both the litigants and absent parties.  The court also encouraged the use of the partial summary judgment mechanism, rather than Rule 23(c)(4), to resolve discrete legal issues common to many class members. 

Time 6 Minute Read

On May 19, 2023, the United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit became the second circuit court to reject a familiar two-step certification procedure for collective actions under the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA).  In Clark v. A&L Home Care and Training Center, LLC, the court held that FLSA plaintiffs who seek to represent other employees in a collective action must demonstrate a “strong likelihood” that other employees they seek to represent are “similarly situated” to the lead plaintiffs.  

Search

Subscribe Arrow

Recent Posts

Categories

Tags

Authors

Archives

Jump to Page