Armstrong v. Davis

3 Analyses of this case by attorneys

  1. Standing vs. Typicality in Class Actions: Blurry Lines and a Split of Authority

    Robinson BradshawNovember 30, 2023

    d judicial access for different reasons — namely, their language and lockdown status. Finally, in Gratz, the Court acknowledged the tension in its prior cases between “adequacy or standing,” but upheld the standing of a freshman to challenge race-based admissions on behalf of transfer students because the claims by each group did not raise “a significantly different set of concerns.”As a result of the contrasting guidance in Sosna, Blum, Lewis, and Gratz, courts across the country apply varying scrutiny as to the relatedness of claims prior to class certification. For example, the Ninth Circuit has suggested that the claims only need to be broadly similar in order for a class representative to have standing: “When determining what constitutes the same type of relief or the same kind of injury, we must be careful not to employ too narrow or technical an approach. … [W]e must reject the temptation to parse too finely, and consider instead the context of the inquiry.” Armstrong v. Davis, 275 F.3d 849, 867 (9th Cir. 2001). Conversely, courts in the Eleventh Circuit apply a stricter analysis, holding that although standing does not require that all members suffer the same injury at the same place on the same day, it does require “that the named plaintiff and class members have the same interest and suffer the ‘same injury.’” Fox v. Ritz-Carlton Hotel Co., LLC, 977 F.3d 1039, 1046 (11th Cir. 2020); see also Barrows v. Becerra, 24 F.4th 116, 129 (2d Cir. 2022) (conduct at issue must “implicate the same set of concerns”). Most recently, the Fifth Circuit encountered this question and declined to create a bright line rule, instead opting to analyze the facts under both the Standing and Class Certification Approaches. See Chavez v. Plan Benefit Servs., 77 F.4th 370 (5th Cir. 2023).Some circuits, including the Fourth, have not reached this issue. Within the Fourth Circuit, district courts have reached different outcomes. Compare In re Interior Molded Doors Antitrust Litig., 2019 WL 4478734 (E.D. Va. Sept. 18,

  2. Fraudulent Omission Claims Unsuccessful Where Plaintiff Failed to Adequately Plead Defendant’s Knowledge of Alleged Defect

    Kramer Levin Naftalis & Frankel LLPJanuary 29, 2017

    Rather, we must examine the questions realistically: we must reject the temptation to parse too finely, and consider instead the context of the inquiry.” Id. (quoting Armstrong v. Davis, 275 F.3d 849, 867 (9th Cir. 2001), abrogated on other grounds by Johnson v. California, 543 U.S. 499, 504–05 (2005)).In the instant case, Defendant does not draw any distinction between the instant case and the cases in which this Court applied the substantially similar approach. See generally Mot. Dismiss at 22–24.

  3. Torrent v. Yakult U.S.A., Inc., No. SACV 15-00124-CJC(JCGx) (C.D. Cal. Jan. 5, 2016)

    Kramer Levin Naftalis & Frankel LLPJanuary 29, 2017

    LEGAL STANDARDUnder Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23, district courts have broad discretion to determine whether a class should be certified. Armstrong v. Davis, 275 F.3d 849, 871 n.28 (9th Cir. 2001) (abrogated on other grounds). The party seeking class certification bears the burden of showing that each of the four requirements of Rule 23(a) and at least one of the requirements of Rule 23(b) are met. Zinser v. Accufix Research Inst., Inc., 253 F.3d 1180, 1186 (9th Cir. 2001); Fed. R. Civ. P. 23. Rule 23(a) provides that a case is appropriate for class certification as a class action if: (1) the class is so numerous that joinder of all members is impracticable, (2) there are questions of law or fact common to the class, (3) the claims or defenses of the representative parties are typical of the claims or defenses of the class, and (4) the representative parties will fairly and adequately protect the interests of the class.