BarbriSFCourseDetails
  1. keyboard_arrow_leftBack

Course Details

Course Information
  • smart_display Format

    On-Demand

  • signal_cellular_alt Difficulty Level

  • work Practice Area

    Class Action and Other Litigation

Date & Time
  • event Date

    Wednesday, July 21, 2021

  • schedule Time

    1:00 p.m. ET./10:00 a.m. PT

  • timer Program Length

    90 minutes

Credit Information

  • This 90-minute webinar is eligible in most states for 1.5 CLE credits.

$297.00
CLE
ALL

This CLE course will discuss the Supreme Court's forthcoming decision in TransUnion v. Ramirez (U.S. 2021), which is expected to address a plaintiff's Article III standing when a defendant violates a plaintiff's statutory rights but there is allegedly no "concrete injury." The program will review the arguments made by the parties, the majority opinion, and the opinions of other Justices.

Faculty

Robert Neary
Of Counsel
Kozyak Tropin & Throckmorton

Mr. Neary's practice includes various areas of complex commercial litigation as well as class actions and multi-district litigation, representing plaintiffs in fraud and deceptive trade practices, tort, and product liability claims. He has litigated actions in both Federal and State courts and has also litigated matters before the Financial Industry Regulatory Authority (FINRA).

expand_circle_down Expand to View Full Bio expand_circle_up Collapse Bio
Christopher R. Wray
Of Counsel
Shook Hardy & Bacon

Mr. Wray's practice focuses on defending consumer product class actions and product liability litigation at the trial and appellate level. He has successfully represented clients in multidistrict litigation, class actions and other complex litigation.





Prior to joining the firm, Mr. Wray served as the chief of staff and deputy solicitor general in the Missouri Attorney General’s Office. During his time in public service, he won several high-profile appeals before the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit, the Supreme Court of Missouri and the Missouri Court of Appeals. Mr. Wray oversaw all operations of the Attorney General’s Office, supervising more than 300 attorneys and staff. He developed significant experience in constitutional law, administrative law, national amicus practice and governmental investigations. 

expand_circle_down Expand to View Full Bio expand_circle_up Collapse Bio
Daniel E. Cummings
Attorney
Shook Hardy & Bacon

Mr. Cummings focuses his litigation practice primarily on product liability matters, handling cases at every stage from pretrial through appeal. He works as a member of the firm’s legal issues group, researching complex legal issues and drafting evidentiary and dispositive motions.  

expand_circle_down Expand to View Full Bio expand_circle_up Collapse Bio

Description

Identifying when an intangible injury is "concrete" and "particularized" enough to support Article III standing has puzzled counsel, scholars, and courts alike, as illustrated by the 29 amicus briefs filed in Ramirez.

After Spokeo Inc. v. Robins, 136 S. Ct. 1540 (2016), a split developed among the circuit courts. The Second, Fourth, Eighth, and Eleventh Circuits, on the one hand, adhered closely to the Court's "concrete" and "particularized" injury standard, while the Sixth, Seventh, Ninth, and D.C. Circuits, on the other hand, took a more expansive and less literal view of standing in data security and privacy cases.

In Ramirez, the defendant credit reporting agency argued that standing under FCRA does not arise until and unless it actually provides incorrect information to a third party. Thus, according to the defendant, putative class members lacked standing if their "inaccurate" information was not shared, they were therefore improperly joined, and the defendant did not owe them statutory damages.

Listen as this experienced panel of class action counsel discusses Ramirez and the case's impact on standing in class actions.

Outline

  1. Overview of standing under Article III
  2. Legacy of Spokeo Inc. v. Robins
  3. TransUnion v. Ramirez
    1. Underlying facts and history
    2. Decision
    3. Impact on standing in class actions

Benefits

The panel will review these and other critical questions:

  • When is collection and maintenance of false information a concrete injury actionable in federal court under the FCRA?
  • Should damages be considered at certification when determining if "claims and defenses" are typical?
  • Should the lack of concrete injury by some absent class members be understood and analyzed as a class certification issue or an Article III standing issue?
  • What constitutes harm when a defendant violates a statute and what effect will the TransUnion decision have on similar class action lawsuits?