Can a plaintiff represent a class without showing that there’s a feasible way to identify the absent class members? In its recent decision in Cherry v. Dometic Corp., the Eleventh Circuit has become the latest circuit to answer that question with a “maybe.” Although the court noted that the “feasibility” of identifying absent class
J. Thomas Richie
Thomas Richie has defended dozens of class actions involving federal statutory claims, breach-of-contract, negligence, products liability, warranty, data breach, tax and financial services issues. He represents clients across industries, including insurance, retail, construction, defense, pharmaceutical, energy, environmental, finance, wireless communication, and manufacturing.
No Worse for Butter: Ninth Circuit Says Popcorn’s “Secret” Ingredient Does Not Confer Article III Standing
The Ninth Circuit recently determined that the mere presence of artificial trans fats in popcorn (i.e., the “butter” in butter flavored popcorn) does not create an injury that confers Article III standing.
In McGee v. S-L Snacks National, a consumer brought a putative class action alleging economic and physical injuries caused by…
Competing Duties and Courts: 11th Circuit Clarifies Procedures and Counsel Duties in Competing Class Actions
The 11th Circuit recently addressed the issue of competing or overlapping class actions, which often create problems for both the plaintiffs’ counsel and the defense. In Medical and Chiropractic Clinic, Inc. v. Oppenheim, the 11th Circuit clarified what duties class counsel owes to class representatives and the correct forum for asserting challenges…