Rule 23(f) Class Certification Appeals: Pursuing or Challenging Interlocutory Review of Certification Orders
Lessons From Labcorp v. Davis, Complying With Strict Procedural Requirements, Developing a Solid Appeal Strategy
Course Details
- smart_display Format
On-Demand
- signal_cellular_alt Difficulty Level
Intermediate
- work Practice Area
Class Action and Other Litigation
- event Date
Thursday, August 28, 2025
- schedule Time
1:00 p.m. ET./10:00 a.m. PT
- timer Program Length
90 minutes
-
This 90-minute webinar is eligible in most states for 1.5 CLE credits.
-
This CLE webinar will examine how circuit courts exercise their discretion to permit or deny appeals under Rule 23(f) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure and the differences among the circuits on essential issues and standards. The panel will also discuss considerations for class counsel on either side of the certification issue if they wish to appeal (or hope to prevent an appeal) of the certification order. Finally, the panel will address the dismissal of Laboratory Corp. of America Holdings v. Davis, Doc. No. 24-304, (writ of certiorari dismissed as improvidently granted ) (U.S. June 5, 2025).
Mr. Leffel is a partner and litigation lawyer with Foley & Lardner LLP. His practice focuses on complex commercial litigation matters, including class actions. Mr. Leffel is the chair of the firm’s Consumer Law, Finance & Class Action Practice. He is a member of the firm's Appellate, Consumer Financial Services, and Business Litigation & Dispute Resolution Practices. Mr. Leffel is an adjunct professor at the University of Wisconsin Law School, where he teaches “Complex Litigation.”
Mr. Ruttinger develops and implements strategies for clients in class action, commercial and complex litigation across the country. He advises and advocates for clients at all phases of a case, from pre-litigation consulting on regulatory issues, to dispositive and class-certification motions, to appeals. Mr. Ruttinger regularly handles complicated, high-stakes issues for clients ranging from challenges to class certification to developing strategies for seeking summary judgment and excluding unreliable expert opinions. He is a frequent writer and speaker on the application of class action and product liability laws to emerging technologies.
Rule 23(f) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure authorizes interlocutory review of class certification orders at the discretion of the federal courts of appeal. Litigants seeking interlocutory review must comply with strict procedural requirements under Rule 23(f), including a limited amount of time to appeal, but they do not need to seek leave of the trial court.
The Committee Notes to Rule 23(f) observe that appeals "may be granted or denied based on any consideration that the court of appeals finds persuasive." Nonetheless, all the courts of appeal have identified considerations they find more persuasive in permitting appeals, but no two are alike.
Listen as our panel examines how the federal courts address Rule 23(f) appeals and provides strategies for counsel for pursuing or opposing interlocutory review of a class certification decision. The panel will also address the recent Supreme Court Microsoft v. Baker ruling halting a plaintiff's ability to circumvent Rule 23(f) by voluntarily dismissing the underlying claims with prejudice after the district court denies certification.
I. Critical features of Rule 23(f)
A. No automatic right to appeal
B. No automatic stay of district court proceedings
C. Time to appeal
D. Standards of review
II. "Death knell" cases and "reverse death knell" cases
III. Blair approach
IV. Prado five-factor test
V. Variations of the Blair and Prado approaches
VI. Challenging motion for appellate review of class certification
VII. Lessons from Labcorp v. Davis
The panel will review these and other key issues:
- What are the lessons for class counsel from recent case law addressing Rule 23(f) appeals?
- What are key procedural requirements of Rule 23(f)?
- What standards are the courts applying in granting or denying an interlocutory appeal of a certification decision?
