Highlights from this issue include: 

• Motions to Strike Class Allegations. The Fourth Circuit clarified under what statute and when a motion to strike is appropriate. It held that under Rule 23(c)(1)(A), a district court may deny class certification before discovery only if the complaint’s class action allegations fail to satisfy the relevant legal standards as a matter of law.
• Standing. There are generally two tests to determine standing in class cases: the “standing approach” or the “class certification approach.” Under the standing approach, a named plaintiff may litigate only on behalf of those whose harms are a close match for the harms he suffered. This approach requires an examination of how the harms that the named plaintiff suffered compare to the harms that the unnamed class members suffered. In contrast, the class certification approach simply asks whether a named plaintiff has standing to bring a claim. If so, the standing inquiry is at an end and the comparison of the harms of the named representative and the unnamed class members is viewed through the Rule 23 factors, not justiciability. The Sixth Circuit took a standing case but did not address this issue because it held the plaintiff had standing under either test.
• Erie Analysis. The Sixth Circuit reversed a district court’s decision not to certify classes in states where there was no binding state court decision or regulation that addressed the substantive issue in dispute. The Sixth Circuit found the district court’s refusal to analyze any authority except state supreme court decisions or statutes ran afoul of the requirement to do an Erie analysis to predict how those state’s highest courts would rule on the issue.