Other Contributors

About Us

The contributors to the Consumer Law & Policy blog are lawyers and law professors who practice, teach, or write about consumer law and policy. The blog is hosted by Public Citizen Litigation Group, but the views expressed here are solely those of the individual contributors (and don't necessarily reflect the views of institutions with which they are affiliated). To view the blog's policies, please click here.

« One Class's Field Test of the Magnuson-Moss Disclosure Rules | Main | Must Read: New York Times Series on Consumer Debt »

Saturday, July 19, 2008



It's lawless for judges to refuse to certify these kinds on cases on the ground that a class action is not "superior." Everyone knows that's not what superiority under (b)(3) is all about. Sure, Congress can "revisit" anything it wants (which is exactly what it did recently with respect to the truncation cases); in the meantime, the courts have no business making stuff up.

Ted Frank

See also Murray v. GMAC, 434 F.3d 948 (7th Cir. 2006) (holding that problem of annihilating damages should be addressed at damages stage using principles of State Farm v. Campbell, rather than at class-certification stage) and Grimes v. Raves Motion Pictures Birmingham, LLC, __ F.Supp. 2d ___, No. 07-AR-1397-S (N.D. Ala. May 28, 2008) (holding FACTA unconstitutional because of annihilating damages problem).

The comments to this entry are closed.

Subscribe to CL&P

RSS/Atom Feed

To receive a daily email of Consumer Law & Policy content, enter your email address here:

Search CL&P Blog

Recent Posts

October 2020

Sun Mon Tue Wed Thu Fri Sat
        1 2 3
4 5 6 7 8 9 10
11 12 13 14 15 16 17
18 19 20 21 22 23 24
25 26 27 28 29 30 31