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
“I told you never to call me here”: Eleventh Circuit Decertifies TCPA Class Containing Absent Class Members Without Article III Standing
The Eleventh Circuit last month issued a significant class action opinion in Cordoba v. DirectTV, LLC, vacating a class certified in a TCPA class action and remanding the case. The issue 
underlying the court’s decision was whether large parts of the class as certified had standing. Because the plaintiff did not establish that common
“Any” Doesn’t Mean “All”: In Home Depot, SCOTUS Says “Any Defendant” Doesn’t Include Third-party Defendants Facing Class Claims
To the surprise of many observers (including us), the Supreme Court held last week in Home Depot USA Inc. v. George Jackson that a third-party defendant could not remove class action claims – under either the general removal statute, 28 U.S.C. § 1441(a), or the Class Action Fairness Act (CAFA), 28 U.S.C. §