FRINK Linked Data Fragments server

Matches in SemOpenAlex for { <https://semopenalex.org/work/W2291475211> ?p ?o ?g. }

• W2291475211 abstract "There can be little doubt that the question of standing is an important requirement for class certification. Whether the standing inquiry is incorporated into the implicit requirement that the class representative actually be a member of the class, or whether it is viewed as a freestanding requirement, there can be little doubt that standing is one of the most established principles of federal class action jurisprudence.Prior to the Supreme Court's two landmark decisions in Amchem Products, Inc. v. Windsor and Ortiz v. Fibreboard Corp., many courts viewed the standing issue as a threshold issue for class certification, and federal and state courts acknowledged this proposition. In those courts that viewed standing as a jurisdictional prerequisite, a plaintiff's lack of standing at the time the class action suit was filed deprived the court of subject matter jurisdiction over the plaintiff's individual claims and claims on behalf of the class. Before Amchem and Ortiz, courts routinely considered standing challenges and other dispositive motions prior to class certification. Strategically, it has always been to the defendant's advantage to challenge the plaintiff's standing prior to certification. If the defendant prevailed on a motion to dismiss for lack of standing, the class action would be dismissed because a class action without a class representative could not go forward. If class counsel wished to pursue the class action, counsel would need to find a class representative with proper standing.Consequently, plaintiff's class counsel seek to deflect, defer, or prevent a court's consideration of standing until after class certification because class counsel gain a strategic advantage merely by having the court certify the action, even if there are problems or defects with standing. Class counsel were unexpectedly handed a strategic boon in the Court's 1997 Amchem and 1999 Ortiz decisions. Building on an analytical foundation set forth in Amchem, the Court in Ortiz explained that: “the class certification issues are . . . logically antecedent to Article III concerns, and themselves pertain to statutory standing, which may properly be treated before Article III standing. Thus the issue about Rule 23 certification should be treated first.” This single sentence in both Amchem and Ortiz has caused a great deal of mischief. Since the late 1990s, as a consequence of Amchem and Ortiz's “logically antecedent” language, some courts have been persuaded to decline consideration of standing or other jurisdictional challenges prior to class certification. This shift has benefited the plaintiffs' class action bar who, through invocation of the Amchem-Ortiz “logically antecedent” language, may now evade threshold scrutiny of the class representative's standing, or possibly other threshold jurisdictional challenges, with impunity.More expansively, some class counsel have broadly invoked the Court's Amchem-Ortiz “logically antecedent” language in order to prevent a court's consideration of an array of other pre-certification dispositive motions, relating to other jurisdictional or justiciability issues, such as mootness. In this more expansive reading, class counsel urge that the Supreme Court has generally suggested the class certification determination is logically antecedent to, and should come before, a court's consideration of any defense motions to dismiss the action on other grounds.Naturally, the plaintiff's invocation of the Amchem-Ortiz “logically antecedent” language has correlatively caused defendants a great deal of frustration, especially when courts agree to postpone consideration of standing or other dispositive motions in order to evaluate class certification requirements and certify a class. From the defendant's point to view, a court's postponement of something as basic as a standing challenge, or any other jurisdictional or justiciability challenge, has perverse consequences.This article argues that those courts that have interpreted the Amchem-Ortiz language as creating an exception, rather than a rule, have correctly construed and applied the Amchem-Ortiz brief excursion on the timing of class standing issues. Indeed, the Amchem-Ortiz “logically antecedent” language was not intended to create a new rule, but instead rather inartfully restated pre-existing doctrine. In the final analysis, courts should continue to review standing and other jurisdictional challenges at the same time and in the same fashion as those courts did prior to Amchem and Ortiz. To do otherwise results in the perverse consequences defendants have rightly identified post-Ortiz.Finally, this article suggests that in the same fashion that the Amchem-Ortiz “logically antecedent” language should not be read to bar pre-certification standing and jurisdictional challenges, courts should not view this language to expansively counsel deferral of the array of pre-certification dispositive motions that courts traditionally have entertained prior to consideration of class certification motions." @default.
• W2291475211 created "2016-06-24" @default.
• W2291475211 creator A5038362183 @default.
• W2291475211 date "2004-01-01" @default.
• W2291475211 modified "2023-09-23" @default.
• W2291475211 title "Standing and Other Dispositive Motions after Amchem and Ortiz: The Problem of 'Logically Antecedent' Inquiries" @default.
• W2291475211 hasPublicationYear "2004" @default.
• W2291475211 type Work @default.
• W2291475211 sameAs 2291475211 @default.
• W2291475211 citedByCount "0" @default.
• W2291475211 crossrefType "posted-content" @default.
• W2291475211 hasAuthorship W2291475211A5038362183 @default.
• W2291475211 hasConcept C11413529 @default.
• W2291475211 hasConcept C144024400 @default.
• W2291475211 hasConcept C154945302 @default.
• W2291475211 hasConcept C160118682 @default.
• W2291475211 hasConcept C169437150 @default.
• W2291475211 hasConcept C17744445 @default.
• W2291475211 hasConcept C18903297 @default.
• W2291475211 hasConcept C190253527 @default.
• W2291475211 hasConcept C199539241 @default.
• W2291475211 hasConcept C2776687834 @default.
• W2291475211 hasConcept C2776949292 @default.
• W2291475211 hasConcept C2777212361 @default.
• W2291475211 hasConcept C2778272461 @default.
• W2291475211 hasConcept C2778941711 @default.
• W2291475211 hasConcept C2779518780 @default.
• W2291475211 hasConcept C2780858371 @default.
• W2291475211 hasConcept C41008148 @default.
• W2291475211 hasConcept C48103436 @default.
• W2291475211 hasConcept C538833194 @default.
• W2291475211 hasConcept C86803240 @default.
• W2291475211 hasConcept C87501996 @default.
• W2291475211 hasConcept C97460637 @default.
• W2291475211 hasConceptScore W2291475211C11413529 @default.
• W2291475211 hasConceptScore W2291475211C144024400 @default.
• W2291475211 hasConceptScore W2291475211C154945302 @default.
• W2291475211 hasConceptScore W2291475211C160118682 @default.
• W2291475211 hasConceptScore W2291475211C169437150 @default.
• W2291475211 hasConceptScore W2291475211C17744445 @default.
• W2291475211 hasConceptScore W2291475211C18903297 @default.
• W2291475211 hasConceptScore W2291475211C190253527 @default.
• W2291475211 hasConceptScore W2291475211C199539241 @default.
• W2291475211 hasConceptScore W2291475211C2776687834 @default.
• W2291475211 hasConceptScore W2291475211C2776949292 @default.
• W2291475211 hasConceptScore W2291475211C2777212361 @default.
• W2291475211 hasConceptScore W2291475211C2778272461 @default.
• W2291475211 hasConceptScore W2291475211C2778941711 @default.
• W2291475211 hasConceptScore W2291475211C2779518780 @default.
• W2291475211 hasConceptScore W2291475211C2780858371 @default.
• W2291475211 hasConceptScore W2291475211C41008148 @default.
• W2291475211 hasConceptScore W2291475211C48103436 @default.
• W2291475211 hasConceptScore W2291475211C538833194 @default.
• W2291475211 hasConceptScore W2291475211C86803240 @default.
• W2291475211 hasConceptScore W2291475211C87501996 @default.
• W2291475211 hasConceptScore W2291475211C97460637 @default.
• W2291475211 hasOpenAccess W2291475211 @default.
• W2291475211 hasRelatedWork W1596081336 @default.
• W2291475211 hasRelatedWork W1983557152 @default.
• W2291475211 hasRelatedWork W201267247 @default.
• W2291475211 hasRelatedWork W2147051242 @default.
• W2291475211 hasRelatedWork W2271049433 @default.
• W2291475211 hasRelatedWork W252952362 @default.
• W2291475211 hasRelatedWork W2765881148 @default.
• W2291475211 hasRelatedWork W289487225 @default.
• W2291475211 hasRelatedWork W3122530168 @default.
• W2291475211 hasRelatedWork W3123302356 @default.
• W2291475211 hasRelatedWork W3123383367 @default.
• W2291475211 hasRelatedWork W3123428176 @default.
• W2291475211 hasRelatedWork W3124441155 @default.
• W2291475211 hasRelatedWork W3125472593 @default.
• W2291475211 hasRelatedWork W3125829259 @default.
• W2291475211 hasRelatedWork W65634332 @default.
• W2291475211 hasRelatedWork W3121936973 @default.
• W2291475211 hasRelatedWork W3124719642 @default.
• W2291475211 hasRelatedWork W3125488354 @default.
• W2291475211 hasRelatedWork W3126134200 @default.
• W2291475211 isParatext "false" @default.
• W2291475211 isRetracted "false" @default.
• W2291475211 magId "2291475211" @default.
• W2291475211 workType "article" @default.