• videocam Live Webinar with Live Q&A
  • calendar_month July 30, 2026 @ 1:00 PM ET/10:00 AM PT
  • signal_cellular_alt Intermediate
  • card_travel Class Action
  • schedule 90 minutes

Beyond Predominance: Alternative Arguments Against Class Certification

Leveraging Rule 23 Requirements for Ascertainability, Typicality/Adequacy, Standing, and Personal Jurisdiction

About the Course

Introduction

This CLE course will discuss opposing class certification beyond Rule 23(b)(3)'s predominance requirement, including arguments related to ascertainability, typicality/adequacy, standing, and personal jurisdiction.

Description

Class certification proceedings often focus on whether common issues predominate over individual issues. Good lawyering, however, recognizes the importance of raising arguments beyond those afforded by Rule 23(b)(3)—including arguments arising from other subsections of Rule 23 and those originating in the case law. Join our panel as they discuss recent developments concerning several such avenues for defending against certification, including:

  • Ascertainability. Ascertainability demands that class action plaintiffs present a mechanism for identifying prospective class members before the class is certified. Panelists will explain the ongoing federal circuit split on ascertainability issues, discuss recent decisions denying class certification on this ground, and provide insight regarding which arguments seem to be well received in different jurisdictions.
  • Typicality and adequacy. Rule 23(a)'s typicality and adequacy requirements prevent certification if the claims of the named plaintiff(s) are subject to unique defenses not applicable to the class as a whole. Panelists will discuss recent case law in which class action defendants have used these requirements to their advantage and provide litigation strategies for setting up such arguments on class certification.
  • Article III standing. Our panel will discuss the different approaches to applying Ramirez v. TransUnion L.L.C. and Spokeo v. Robins and consider the avenues available to challenge class certification on Article III grounds and to leverage standing issues in litigating the other requirements of Rule 23.
  • Personal jurisdiction. The Supreme Court in Bristol-Myers Squibb Co. v. Superior Court (BMS) left open the question of whether absent class members must establish personal jurisdiction in class actions. The panel will discuss the different approaches being used to fill that gap, recent developments, and the potential effect of BMS on class litigation.

Listen as our authoritative panel discusses recent developments in applying the ascertainability requirement and the likely impact of the latest case law trends for counsel opposing certification.

Presented By

Karen M. Firstenberg
Partner
Thompson Hine LLP

Ms. Firstenberg a partner in the Product Liability Litigation and Environmental groups, provides strategic counsel to life sciences companies and industrial and commodity chemical and pesticide manufacturers on high-stakes product liability, toxic tort, and regulatory matters. She has led nationwide mass tort litigation involving claims of wrongful death and personal injury in state and federal courts, securing favorable jury verdicts in multimillion-dollar drug and device cases. Ms. Firstenberg also frequently defends clients against claims involving exposures and environmental contaminations and advises clients on environmental compliance and risk management. As a first-chair trial lawyer, she partners with clients to assess pre-litigation risks, including conducting early case assessment to develop best practices to mitigate those risks consistent with each client’s goals. Ms. Firstenberg works closely with clients to understand the complexities of their business, with a sharp focus on aligning legal tactics with business objectives.

Gregory T. Fouts
Partner
Thompson Hine LLP

Mr. Fouts is a partner in the firm’s Business Litigation practice group, providing counsel on complex litigation matters, focusing extensively on consumer class action defense. With broad experience in federal and state courts nationwide, he represents financial services firms, technology companies, retailers, and other consumer-facing clients in class actions involving alleged violations of federal and state consumer fraud and privacy laws, breach of fiduciary duty, and contract disputes. Mr. Fouts has particular experience defending technology companies in class actions brought under the Illinois Biometric Information Privacy Act. In addition to his class action defense work, he assists clients with investigations, enforcement actions, and litigation initiated by regulatory bodies, including the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau (CFPB), the Office of the Comptroller of the Currency (OCC), and state attorneys general. Mr. Fouts's litigation practice also includes defending clients in commercial disputes, such as accounting malpractice, lender liability, contract breaches, and fiduciary duty claims.

Doori C. Song
Senior Managing Attorney
Thompson Hine LLP

Mr. Song is a senior managing associate in the Business Litigation group. He focuses on complex commercial litigation and class actions, representing clients in state and federal courts. Mr. Song's experience encompasses matters involving product liability, breach of contract, consumer disputes, fraud, and unjust enrichment.

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


  • Live Online


    On Demand

Date + Time

  • event

    Thursday, July 30, 2026

  • schedule

    1:00 PM ET/10:00 AM PT

I. Ascertainability

II. Typicality and adequacy

III. Article III standing

IV. Personal jurisdiction

The panel will review these and other key topics:

  • The federal circuit split on the ascertainability requirement
  • Litigation strategies for challenging typicality and adequacy
  • Different approaches to applying Spokeo v. Robins and Ramirez v. TransUnion L.L.C.
  • Explore different approaches to absent members and personal jurisdiction