P RE CE DE NT I AL UN I TED STATES CO UR T OF A PP EALS F O R T H E T H IR D C IR C U IT

___________ N o. 08- 4323

___________ N IC O L E E H R H E A R T ; J O H N J . G A R L A N D , I ndi vi dual l yand on beha l f of a l l ot her s s i m i l ar l ys i tuat ed

v. V E R I Z O N W I R E L E SS; D O E S 1 T H R O U G H 10 i ncl us i ve; VERI ZON W I REL ES S S ERVI CES , LL C; CEL LCO PA RT N ER SH I P d/b/ a V ER I ZO N W I RE LESS

NI CH OL E HR HE AR T a n d J OHN GA RL AND,

A p p e llan ts

___________ O n A p p ea l from the U n it ed S tat es D istri ct C o u rt f o r th e W e ste rn D istric t o f P e n n sy lv a n ia ( D
. C

. N o. 2- 07- cv- 0 1165) D i stri ctJudg e: T he H on orabl e D on et t a W
. A m brose

___________ A R G U E D O C T O B E R 29, 20092 B E F O R E : S M IT H , F IS H E R , and N Y G A A R D , C i rcui tJudg es. ( Fi l ed: J une 15, 2010)

___________ G aryF. L ynch, E s q. ( A r gued) R
. B ruce Car l s on, E s q. C ar l s on L ynch 36 N or t h J eff

er s on St r eet PO B ox 7635 N ew C as t l e, PA 16107 C o u n sel fo r A p p ell an t, E h rhe art

J us t i n S. G i l ber t , E s q. G i l ber tR us s el l & M cW her t er 101 N or t h H i ghl and J acks on, T N 38301 C ouns el forA ppel l ant , G ar l and

M i chae l A

. C arvi n, E s q. ( A r gued) N oel J
. Fr anci s co, E s q. J ohn M

. G or e, E s q. J ones D ay 5 1 L o u i s i a n a Av e n u e , NW W as hi ngt on, D C 200013 A m yE
. D i as , E s q. J ones D ay 500 G r antSt r eet , Sui t e 4500 Pi t t s bur gh, PA 15219 C ouns el forA ppel l ees

___________ OPI NI ON O F THE COURT

___________ N Y G A A R D , C i r cui tJ udge. I
. W e foc us i n t hi s appea l on t he par amet er s of a di s t r i ct cour t ’ s role i n r evi ew i ng cl as s act i on s et t l ement s . T he fa ctual and pr ocedur al backgr ound i s str ai ght forw ar d. T he Fai rand A ccur at e C r edi t T r ans act i on A ct( FA C T A ) , 15 U
. S. C

. § 1681 et s eq . , p roh ibit s a sell er from p ri n ti n g a re ce ipt th at disp lay s m o re t han the l as tfi ve di gi t s of a buy er ’ s cr edi tordebi tcar d and/ or th e e x p ir a ti o n d a te o f

th e c re d it o r d e b it c a rd . 1 5 U .S .C . § 1681 c ( g) ( 1)

. The A pp e l l a nt s c l a i med tha tV e r i z on W i rel ess viol at ed these provi si on s and fi l ed a cl ass act i on l aw sui tagainst th e c o m p a n y . T he part i es par t i ci pat ed i n court-or der ed medi at i on, s t ar t i ng i n Januaryof 2008. D ur i ng t hi s t i m e, l egi s l at i on w as pen d i ng befor e C ongr es s

— t he C r edi tand D ebi tC ar d R ece i pt C lar if ica tio n A c t o f 2 0 0 7 , 1 5 U .S .C . § 1 6 8 1 n (d )— w h ich w o u ldW e not e thati n ot heral m os ti denti ca l c as es , di s t r i ct 1. j udges w i t hi n t hi s C i r cui thave de ni ed r eques t s t o s etas i de F A C T A s e ttle m e n ts a f

te r p a s s a g e o f

th e C la ri f

ic a tio n A c t. See C ol ell a v. U

ni v. of P i t t s bur gh , 569 F. Supp. 2d 525 ( W
. D
. Pa. 2 0 0 8 ); H ughes v. I

nMot i on E nt er t ai nm ent , 20 0 8 W L 3889725 (W

. D
. P a. A ug . 18 , 20 08 ); C u rial e v. Lenox G r oup I nc . , 2008 W L 4 8 9 9 4 7 4 (E .D . P a . N o v . 1 4 , 2 0 0 8 ). 4 amend FA C T A by el i m i nat i ng t he A ppel l ant s ’ caus e of a ct i on. A ft ercompl et i ng m edi at i on, t he part i es arr i ved ata s et t l ement w hi ch they s ubm i t t ed t o t he D i s t r i ctC our tforappr oval pur s uant t o F ED .R .C IV .P . 2 3 (e) o n A p ri l 22 , 2 0 0 8
. T h e D istri ct C o u rt e n t e r e d a p r e l i m i n a r y o r d e r a p p r o v i n g t h e s e t t l e m e n tt w o d a ys lat er. T he C l ar i fi cat i on A ctw as s i gned i nt o l aw byPr es i dent B us h on J une 3, 2008. Si x day s l at er , V er i zon fi led a m ot i on ask ing the D istri ct C o u rt to vac ate it s o rde r gra n ti n g p reli m inary a p p r o v a l to th e se ttl e m e n t. T h e D istric t C o u rt g ra n ted th is m oti on . V eri zon t hen m ov ed for a j ud gm ent on t he p l eadings,

1 w hi ch w as gr ant ed on Sept ember25, 2008. W e w i l l r ever s e. II. Feder al R ul e of Ci vi l Pr ocedur e 23(e ) r equi r es a di s t r i ct cour tto a ppr ove anys et t l ementof a c er t i fi ed cl as s befor e the s et t l ement becomes fi nal

. I n eval uat i ng a cl as s act i on s et t l ement underR ul e 23( e) , a di s t r i ctcour tdet erm i nes w hethert he s e ttle m e n t is f

u n d a m e n ta lly f

a ir , re a s o n a b le , a n d a d e q u a te
. I d. T h e p u rpo se o f R u le 23 (e) is t o p rotec t th e u n n am ed m em b ersW e exe r ci s e pl enaryr evi ew w hen r eview i ng a di s t r i ct 2. c o u rt ’s g ra n t o f ju d g m e n t o n th e p le a d in g s . J a b l o n s k i v . Pa n Am W or ld A i r w ays , I

nc. , 86 3 F
. 2d 28 9, 29 0 (3d C i r. 19 88 ). W e al so exer ci s e pl enaryr evi ew i n cons t rui ng and co n struct i ng a s e ttle m e n t a g re e m e n t. C ol t ec I ndus

. I nc. v. H obgood , 280 F. 3d 2 6 2 , 2 6 9 (3d C ir

. 2 0 0 2 ). 5 of the cl ass from un

j ustor unf

ai r s et t l em ents
. See In re A T & T C orp . , 455 F. 3d 160, 175 ( 3d C i r . 2006) ( quot i ng I n r e C endant C o rp . Li t ig. , 2 6 4 F. 3 d 2 0 1 , 2 3 1 ( 3 d Ci r . 2 0 0 1 ) )

. Her e , t he D i s t r i ctC our tnevercons i der ed w hethe r t o appr ove the sett lem en t bec au s e , c iti n g the C lari fica ti o n A ct, the c o u rt v a c a te d its p re lim in a ry a p p ro v a l. I n vaca t i ng i t s or dergr ant i ng pr el i m i naryappr oval t o t he se ttl e m e n t, th e D istric t C o u rt lo st s ig h t o f th re e im p o rta n t p o in ts th a t g u id e o u r de c isio n to d a y . F irst, th e re is a re stric ted , ti g h tly focus ed r ol e thatR ul e 23 pr es cr i bes fordi s t r i ctcour t s , r equi r i ng t hem t o actas fi duci ar i es for t he abs entcl as s m ember s , butt hat does notves tt hem w i t h br oad pow er s t o intr u d e upon t he p a rties ’ b a rg a in . S e c o n d , a stro n g p u b lic p o licy e x ists, w h ich is par t i cul ar l ym us cul ari n cl as s act i on s u i t s , favor i ng s et t l ementof di s put es , fi nal i t yof j udgm ent s and the t erm i nat i on of l i t i gat i on. T h ir d , o u r ju risp rud en ce h o lds tha t cha n g es in the law af ter a s et t l ement i s r eac hed do not pr ovi de gr ound for r es ci s s i on of the se ttl e m e n t. 2

A

. A p p rop ri ate R o le of the D istri ct C o u rt U n d er F ED .R .C IV .P . 2 3 (e ), a d istric t co u rt’s p rim a ryro le is to determ ine w h ethe r the sett lem en t is fu n d am en ta lly f air, re a s o n a b le a n d a d e q u a te
. I n r e I ns . B r oker age Ant i tr us tLi t ig. , 5 7 9 F .3 d 2 4 1 , 2 5 8 (3 d C ir. 2 0 0 9 ). T h e p u rp o se o f R u le 2 3 (e ) is to p ro te c t th e u n n a m e d m e m b e rs o f t h e c l a s s . In re W a rfa rin Sodi um A nt itru s tLi t ig. , 3 9 1 F
. 3 d 5 1 6 , 5 3 4 (3d C ir

. 2 0 0 4 ).6 U nderR ule 2 3 (e) , a di s t r i ctcour tact s as a fi duci ary , guar di ng th e c la im s a n d ri g h ts o f th e a b s e n t cl a s s m e m b e rs . In re AT&T, 455 F. 3d at175 ( ci t i ng In re C e n da n t C o rp . L iti g . , 264 F. 3d at 2 3 1 ); s ee al

s o, I n r e G ener alMot ors C or p. P i ck- U

p Truc k Fuel T a n k P r o d s . L ia b ility L itig ., 5 5 F
. 3 d 7 6 8 , 7 8 2 (3d C ir

. 1 9 9 5 ). T he r equi r ement t hat a di s t r i ctcour tr evi ew and appr ove a cl as s act i on s et t l ement befor e i t bi nds al l cl as s m ember s does notaff ectt he bi ndi ng natur e of the par t i es ’ under l y i ng a g re e m e n t. In re S

y n c o r ER IS

A L iti g ., 5 1 6 F .3 d 1 0 9 5 , 1 1 0 0 (9 th C i r . 2008)

. Putanother w ay , j udi ci al appr oval of a cl as s act i on s et t l ementi s a condi t i on s ubs equent t o t he contr act and does not a f f e c t th e le g a lity o f th e p ro p o s e d s e ttle m e n t a g re e m e n t. C ol l i ns v. Thom ps on , 6 7 9 F
. 2 d 1 6 8 , 1 7 2 (9th C ir

. 1 9 8 2 ). A d istri ct co u rt i s nota par t y t o t he s et t l ement , norm ayi tm odi fyt he t erm s of a vol un tarys et t l ementagr eementbetw een pa r t i es . I n E vans v. J e ff D

. , 475 U
. S. 717 ( 1986) , t he Supr eme C our texpl ai ned the rol e of a dis t ri ctcou rti n revi ew i ng set t l em ents i n clas s act i on s: R ul e 23( e) w i s el yr equi r es courtappr oval of the t erm s of anys et t l emento f a cl as s act i on, butt he pow er t o appr ove orr ej ecta s et t l ementnegot i at ed byt he part i es befor e tr i al does n o t a ut hor i ze the cour tt o r equi r e the part i es t o acc epta s et t l ement t o w hi ch theyhave notagr eed. I d. at7 2 6 -27 (foot not es om i t t ed)

. Si m i l ar l y , ourr ol e as an appel l at e courti s t o as cert ai n w hetherornott he tri al j udge cl ear l yabused hi s orherdi s cr et i on i n appr ovi ng orr ej ect i ng a s e ttle m e n t a g re e m e n t. S e e GM T r u c k , 5 5 F .3 d a t 7 8 2 ; C ot t on v. Hi nt on , 5 5 9 F .2 d 1 3 2 6 , 1 3 3 3 (5 th C ir . 1 9 7 7 ). W e have no doubt t hat t he s et t l ementagr eementr eac hed i n t hi s cas e i s a bi ndi ng and enf or cea bl e cont r actundergener al pr i nci pl es of contr acti nt erpr et at i on. T he s et t l ementagr eement w as negot i at ed t hr ough and exe cut ed byexper i ence d couns el on7 bot h s i des , fol l ow i ng m edi at i on w i t h a w ell

- r es pect ed and exper i ence d m edi at or . T he par t i es acknow l edged t o t he D i s t r i ct C our tt hatt he agr eementw as negot i at ed i n good fai t h and at arm ’ s l ength. V er i zon admi t s no w r ongdoi ng i n t he s et t l ement agr eement an d deni es al l l i abi l i t y , butagr eed t o t he s et t l ement a f ter tak in g in to a c c o u n t th e u n c e rta in tya n d ri s k s in h e re n t in any l i t i gat i on, es peci al l y i n m ul t i

- part ycas es l i ke thi s l i t i gat i on. Post

- s et t l ement , V er i zon made t he ar gum ent , w hi ch w as e n d o rse d b yth e D istric t C o u rt, th a t a s e tt le m e n t ag re e m e n t is n o t a b in d in g c o n tra c t u n til f in a l ju d icia l a p p r o v a l. T h is is i nco rr ect
. T here are tw o st eps i n reaching a s et t l em ent i n a clas s act i on. Fi r s t , t he par t i es r eac h an agr eed- t o s et t l ement
. Second, t he D i s t r i ctC our teval uat es t he agr eementas a fi du ci aryfor a b s e n t c la s s m e m b e rs . I n r e I ns . B r oker age Ant i tr us tLi t ig. , 579 F. 3d at2 5 7
. T h e rea s on forj udi ci al appr oval i s t o ens ur e that ot herunr epr es ent ed part i es ( abs entcl as s m ember s ) and the publ i c i nt er es tar e fa ir lyt r eat ed byt he s et t l ementr eac hed b e tw e e n th e c la s s re p re s e n ta tiv e s a n d th e d e f e n d a n ts
. C oll i ns, 679 F. 2d at172. H er e, t he D i s tr i ct C our t ’ s ow n l ocal rul es s peci fi cal l yest abl i s h t hi s fi duci aryr el at i ons hi p byr equi r i ng part ies to cl as s act i on s et t l ement s t o gi ve the court“s uffi ci ent i nfor m at i on fort he C our tt o m ak e fin d ings w i t h r es pectt o t he f a irn e ss a n d re a so n a b len e ss o f th e se ttl e m e n t t o the cl ass .” L o ca l R u le of

the U n it ed S tat es D istri c t C o u rt fo r th e W estern D i s t r i ctof Penns y lvani a 23( i ) ( emphasi s added)

. W e make c lea r th a t th is f

id u c iar y p ro tec tio n d o e s n o t e x ten d to d e f e n d a n ts i n a c l a s s a c t i o n , who a r e i n a p o s i t i o n t o p r o t e c tt h e i ro wn i nter est s duri ng neg oti at i on s. See I bar r a v. Texas E m

pl oym ent C o m m ’n , 8 2 3 F .2 d 8 7 3 , 8 7 8 (5 C ir . 1 9 8 7 ). th I f V er i zon’s ar gum entw as acc ept ed, and the D i s t r i ct C our t ’ s act i on i n vaca t i ng i t s pr el i m i naryappr oval aff i r m ed, t he se ttl e m e n t p rocess w o u ld b e c o m e m e a n in g les s s in c e e ith e r p a rty t o a cl as s act i on s et t l ement ( oranyot hert ype of s et t l ementt hat r equi r es cour tappr oval ) coul d back outof an a gr eementatany8 t i m e bef or e cour t appr oval and avoi d anyl egal r eper cus s i ons for br eac hi ng t he ear l i er offe r and acc ept ance . H er e, t he C l ar i fi cat i on A ct w as pendi ng befor e C ongr es s w hen the part i es n e g o tia te d th e ir a g re e m e n t. In n e g o tiatin g th is a g re e m e n t, V er i zon beton t he cert aint yof s et t l ementi ns t ead of gambl i ng o n th e u n c e rta in ties o f

f u tu re leg is la tiv e a c tio n . V e riz o n lo st, a n d th e D is tr ic t C o u rt e rr e d b yle ttin g it r e p la yits h a n d

.

B . P re su m p tio n in F a v o r o f S e ttl e m e n ts T he D i s tr i ctC our t ’ s deci s i on al s o r an af oul of the s t r ong pr es um pt i on i n favor of vol unt arys et t l ementagr eement s , w hi ch w e h a v e e x p lic itly re c o g n iz e d w ith a p p ro v a l. S e e , e.g ., P e n w a lt C or p. v. P l ough , 676 F. 2d 77, 79- 80 ( 3d C i r . 1982)

. T hi s pol i cy i s also ev ide nti n t he Feder al R ul es of C i vi l Pr ocedur e and the D i s t r i ctC our t ’ s L ocal R ul es , w hi ch enc our age f aci l i t at i ng t he s e ttle m e n t o f

c a s e s . S e e , e .g ., F ED .R .C IV . P. 16( a) ( 5) ( one of the fiv e p u rpo ses o f a p retri al c o n fe ren ce is to fa cil it ate se tt lem en t) ; L
. C v. R
. 16. 2( B ) ( r ecogni zi ng the bur den l i t i gat i on pl ace s on p a rties a n d m a n d a tin g th a t th e yu til ize a b ro a d ra n g e o f c o u rts ponso red A D R p roc esse s); L
. C v . R
. 2 3 (C )(5) ( i ncl udi ng among m at t er s t o be di s cus s ed atpr etr i al conf ere n ce t he t i m i ng and p lan f o r m e th o d s o f

a ltern a tiv e d isp u te r e s o lu tio n ). T h is pr es um pt ion i s es peci al l ys t r ong i n “cl as s act i ons and other compl ex ca s es w her e s ubs t ant i al j ud ici al r es our ces can be cons erved by avoi di ng for m al l i t i gat i on. ” GM T r u c k , 55 F. 3d at 784. T h e str ong j udi ci al pol i cyi n favorof cl as s act i on s et t l ementcont empl at es a ci r cumscr i bed r ol e fort he di s t r i ct c o u rts in se ttl e m e n t r e v iew a n d a p p ro v a l p ro c e e d in g s. T h is pol i cyal so t i es i nt o t he s t r ong pol i cyfavor i ng t he fi nal i t yof j udgm ent s and the t erm i nat i on of l i t i gat i on. Set t l ement agr eements ar e t o be enc our aged be caus e theypr om ot e the ami cabl e r es ol ut i on of di s put es and l i ght en the i ncr eas i ng l oad o f litig a tio n f

a c e d b yth e f

e d e ra l c o u rt s . See D

. R

. by M

. R

. v. E as t B r uns w i ck Bd. of

E duc. , 1 0 9 F
. 3 d 8 9 6 , 9 0 1 (3d C ir

. 1 9 9 7 ). I n addi t i on t o t he cons ervat i on of j udi ci al r es our ces , t he part i es9 m ayal s o gai n s i gni fi cant l y fr om avoi di ng t he cos t s and r i s ks of a le n g th y a n d c o m p le x tr ia l. Id

. B yv ac ati n g it s p reli m inary appr oval of the s et t l ementand by gr ant i ng V er i zon a j udgm ent o n th e p lea d in g s, th e D istric t C o u rt p e rm itt e d V e riz o n to v o id its s et t l ementagr eementw hen i t beca m e unpal at abl e and di gr es s ed fr om t he fe der al pol i cyof enc our agi ng cl as s act i on s et t l ement agreem ents
.

C . C h a n g e s in th e L a w a f ter S e ttl e m e n t T h e p arti es d o n o t dispu te o n ap p ea l ( n o r did theyb ef o re t he D i s t r i ctC our t ) t hatt he C l ar i fi cat ion A ctel i m i nat ed the A p p e llan ts’ c a u se o f

a c tio n o r th a t th e A c t r e tro a c tiv e ly e n c o m p a ss e s th e A p p e llan ts’ c laim s. T h e q u e stio n o n a p p e a l, there fo re, i s n o t w h e ther the C lari fica ti o n A ct, en ac ted e arli er, w oul d h a v e e l i m i nat ed A ppel l ant s ’ under l y i ng cl ai m s , butr ather w hethert he A ctm oot s t he sett le m entagr eementt he part i es e x e c u t e d w h i l e t h a tl e g i s l a t i o n w a s p e n d i n g i n C o n g r e s s . We c o n c lu d e th a t it d o e s n o t. W e fi r s tnot e thatchange s i n t he l aw aft ers et t l ementdo notaff ectt he val i di t yof the agr eemen t an d do notpr ovi de a l egi t i m at e bas i s forr es ci ndi ng t he s et t l ement
. A l bei ti n t he cont extof a F ED .R .C IV .P . 6 0 (b ) m o tio n , w e h a v e h e ld th a t a favor abl e cha nge i n t he l aw pos t
- s et t l em en t d oes notgi ve a s et t l i ng par t ya bas i s t o r epudi at e an ot herw i s e val i d s et t l ement agreem en t. C o lte c In d u s tr ie s , In c . v . H o b g o o d , 280 F. 3d 262, 2 7 3 (3 d C ir. 2 0 0 2 ); s ee al s o A gos t i ni v. Fel t on , 52 1 U
. S. 203, 239 ( 1997) ( obs ervi ng t hat“i nt e rv e n i n g d e v e l opm ent s i n t he l aw byt hemsel ves r ar el y cons t i tut e the extr aor di naryci r cumst ance s re q u ire d f

o r re lief u n d e r R u le 6 0 (b )(6 )” ); Kr am erv. G at es , 481 F. 3d 788, 792 ( D
. C

. C i r . 2007)

. O f part i cul arconce r n i n C ol t ec w as t he bel i ef thatthe companyw as at t empt i ng t o es cape t he c o n s e q u e n c e s o f

a b a rg a in it r e g re tte d in h in d s ig h t
. I d. We not ed that“eve n i f C ol t ec’ s deci s i on t o s et t l e w as i m pr ovi dent i n hi nds i ght , t he dec i s i on has been made and c annotbe10 r evi s i t ed, ” and he l d t hatt he companym us tbea r“the co n seq u en ce s o f it s inf o rm ed , co u n s e led a n d v o lun tary d e c is io n ” to s e ttle

. Id

. at275. I n C ol t ec , w e a n a lo g ize d a lit ig a n t’s d e c isio n to se ttl e to a d e te rm in a tio n n o t to a p p e a l a n u n f a v o ra b le d e te rm in a tio n . I d. at274. W e found s uch dec i s i ons , w hen vol unt ar i l ym ade, t o be cal cul at ed and de l i ber at e choi ces bya l i t i gant , choi ces w hi ch p ro v id e n o re lief

w h e n th e le g a l lan d sc a p e su b se q u e n tly c h a n g e s . Id

. ( ci t i ng A cke r m an v. U ni t ed Stat es , 340 U
. S. 193, 1 9 8 (1 9 5 0 )). L ik e a d e c isio n to f o rg o a n a p p e a l, th e d e c isio n to se ttl e a c a se is a c o n sid e re d o n e . T h e c h o ice to se ttl e im p licitly acknow l edges cal cul at ed r i s ks and, i n the end, r efl ect s t he d e lib e ra te d e c isio n o f

b o th p a rties to o p t f o r c e r ta in tyin te rm in a tin g th e irlitig a tio n . See Acke r m an , 3 4 0 U
. S

. a t 1 9 8
. We w ill n o t re liev e a p a rtyo f th a t d e c isio n b e c a u se h in d sig h t re v e a ls th a t its d e c isio n w a s, g iv e n late r c h a n g e s in th e law , p ro b a b ly w ro n g . Id. T h e D istric t C o u rt e rre d b yp e rm itt in g V e riz o n to es cape t he c o n sequences of i t s i nfor m ed, couns el ed and vol unt ary deci s i on t o s et t l e. L at er change s i n t he l aw gave i tno f o u n d a tio n to d o s o . See Col t ec , 2 8 0 F .3 d a t 2 7 5
. I t is e ss e n tial th a t th e p a rties to c las s a c tio n se ttl e m e n ts have compl et e as s ur ance t hat a s et t l ement agr eement i s bi ndi ng o n c e it is re a c h e d

. See In re Syncor , 516 F. 3d at1100 ( ci t i ng C ol l i ns , 679 F. 2d at 172)

. T he fa ctt hata s et t l ementagr eement i s go verned by R ule 23 do es no tdim i nis h it s enfo rceabi l i t yas a contr act
. W her e, as her e, t he part i es hav e exec ut ed an agr eement , a part ycan n o tavoi d i t s i ndepende ntcontr actual o b lig a tio n s s im p lyb e c a u se a c h a n g e in th e law c o n f e rs u p o n it a ben efi tt hat coul d h ave alt ered t he set t l em ent cal culus. O ur di s s ent i ng col l eague bel i eves t hatt he pas s age of t he C l a r i f i c a t i o n A c t r e n d e r e d t h e s e t t l e m e n ta g r e e m e n tm o o t
. We do notagr ee. M oot nes s as ks “w hetherchange s i n ci r cumst ance s t hatpr evai l ed att he begi nni ng of t he l i t i gat i on have f or es t al l ed11 anyocca s i on form eani ngful r el i ef. ” A r tw ay v. A t t ' y G en. of St at e of N

. J. , 81 F. 3d 1235, 1246 ( 3d C i r . 1996) ( quot at i ons and ci t at i ons om i t t ed)

. T hi s r efl ect s t he curr entpos tur e of the ca s e. See al s o A r iz onans f

or O f f i ci al E ngl is h v. A r iz ona , 520 U
. S. 43, 68 n. 22 ( 1997) ( “M oot nes s has been des cr i bed as ‘ t he doctr i ne of st and in g seti n a ti m e fram e: T he requ i si t e personal i nter est t hatm us t exi s t at t he comm ence m entof the l i t i gat i on ( s t andi ng) m u s tcont i nue thr oughouti t s exi s t ence ( m oot nes s ) ’ ” ( quot i ng U n itedS ta tes P a ro le C o m m ’n v . G e ra g h ty , 445 U
. S

. 3 8 8, 397 (19 8 0 )) ( ad d it ion al cit ati o n o m itted).). V i ew i ng t hi s cas e for m oo t n e s s , we c o n c l u d e t h a t t he doctr i ne does notappl y . “[A ] cas e i s m o otw hen the i s s ues p re se n ted a re n o lo n g e r ‘l iv e ’ or th e p a rties lac k a le g a lly cogni zabl e i nt er es t i n t he out come. ” D onovan ex . r el

. D onovan v . Pu n x s u t a wne

y Ar e a Sch. B d. , 3 3 6 F
. 3 d 2 1 1 , 2 1 6 (3d C ir

. 2003) ( quot i ng P ow el lv. McC or m ack , 395 U
. S. 486, 496 ( 1969) )

. “The m oot nes s doctr i ne i s centr al l y conce r ned w i t h t he cour t ’ s ab i l i t yt o gr anteff ect i ve r el i ef: ‘ I f deve l opm ent s occur d u ri n g the c o u rse o f a d jud icati o n that eli m inate a p lai n ti ff ’s per s onal s t ake i n t he out come of a s ui torpr eventa courtfr om bei ng abl e t o gr antt he r equeste d r el i ef, t he ca s e mustbe di s m i s s ed as m oot. ’ ” C ou nty of Morris v. N

ati on alist Movem ent , 273 F. 3d 527, 533 ( 3d C i r . 2001) ( quot i ng B l anci ak v. A l l egheny Ludl um C or p. , 7 7 F
. 3 d 6 9 0 , 6 9 8 -99 (3d C ir

. 1 9 9 6 )). W e fi nd not hi ng i n t he C lar i fi cat i on A ctt hatw oul d m oott he par t i es ’ s et t l ementagr eement
. F ur t her , t he fa ctt hatt he s et t l ementagr eementi s a cl as s act i on s et t l ementgoverned by R ul e 23 does notaff

ectt he enfo rceabi l i t yof the agr eementas a bi ndi ng contr act
. T he par t i es exec ut ed the agr eementw i t h t he u n d e rsta n d in g th a t in ter v e n in g e v e n ts c o u ld a f f e c t th e ir in ter e sts in th e litig a tio n . See, e. g. , Tayl or v. G or don F l es ch C o. , 793 F. 2d 858, 863 ( 7t h C i r . 1986) ( ci t i ng G l as s v. R ock I s l and R e fin in gC o r

p ., 7 8 8 F .2 d 4 5 0 (7 th C ir . 1 9 8 6 ))

.12 Fur t her , t he C l ar i fi cat i on A ctdi d notchange t he D i s t r i ct C our t ’ s abi l i t yt o gr ant eff ect i ve r el i ef. T he A ppel l ant s s t i l l had a “pe r s on al s t ake i n t he out come”— t he s et t l ement agr eement

— and the D i s t r i ct C o ur tcont i nued t o pos s es s t he a b i l ity a n d th e a u th o ri ty to a p p ro v e th e s e ttle m e n t. See O ld B ridg e O w ners C oop. C or p. v. Tw p. of O ld B r i dge , 2 4 6 F. 3d 310, 314 ( 3 d C ir

. 2001)

. A s s um i ng on r emand t he D i s t r i ct C o u rt f in d s th e se ttl e m e n t f

a ir, ad e q u a te a n d r e a s o n a b le to a b sentcl ass m em bers, t he D i stri ctC ou rtcan g rantcom plete rel i ef by enter i ng j ud gm ent on t he set t l em ent agr eem ent. T hu s, th e C lar if

ica tio n A c t d o e s n o t re n d e r th e se ttl e m e n t m o o t.

III
. I n s um , w e w i l l r ever s e t he D i s t r i ctC our t ’ s j udgm enton th e p lea d in g s an d re m a n d th is m a tter w ith in stru c tio n s f o r it to r ei ns t at e i t s pr el i m i naryappr oval of the s et t l ementagr eement and t o p roceed w i t h the R ule 23 process.A l l r efe r ence s t o “R ul e 23( e) ” r efe rt o R ul e 23( e) of the 1 F ederal R ules of C i vil P rocedu re. T hat pr ov i si on st at es: Set t l ement , V ol un t a ryDi s mi s s al , orC om pr om i s e. T he cl ai m s, i ssues, or defen ses of a cert i fi ed clas s m ayb e set t l ed, vol unt ar i l ydi s m i s s ed, or compromi s ed onl yw i t h t he cour t ’ s appr oval

. T he fol l ow i ng pr ocedur es appl yt o a pr opos ed 1 E hr hear tv. V

er iz on , N o. 08- 4323, di s s ent i ng. S M IT H , C i r cui tJudge

. H avi ng r ead the s ame br i efs and hear d t he s ame or al a r g u me n t , t h e ma

j o r i t ya n d I s e e m a l mo s tt o b e d e c i d i n g t wo differ ent appeals

. In the m aj ori ty ’s view , t his case pres ents a s i m pl e, run- of- t he- m i l l cl as s act i on s et tl ementagr eement bi ndi ng t w o w i l l i ng, s ophi s t i cat ed part i es . A s s uch, acc or di ng to the m ajority , the D istri ct C o u rtw as o b li g ated , as a fid u ciary f o r th e a b se n t cla ss m e m b e rs, to re jec t an ym o tio n th a t w o u ld harm t ho se cl ass m em bers.
I n myv i e w, t h i s c a s e i s a b o u tmo o t n e s s a n d s t a n d i n g , t wo i nt err el at ed doctr i nes t hatar e der ive d fr om A r t i cl e I I I of the C ons t i tut i on’ s “ca s e orcontr over s y ” r equi r ement
. T he D i s t r i ct C ou rtun qu est i on ablyhad a fid u c iar y du t yt o the absent cl ass m ember s . B ut t hatdut yi s t r i gger ed onl yw i t hi n t he conf i nes of R u le 23 (e), i

. e. , w h en d ea li n g w ith sett lem en ts, v o lu n tary

1s et t l ement , vol unt arydi s m i s s al , orcompromi s e: (1 ) T h e c o u rt m u st d ire c t n o tice in a re a so n a b le m anner t o al l cl as s m ember s w ho w oul d be bound b yth e p ro p o sa l. ( 2) I f the pr opos al w oul d bi nd cl as s m ember s , t he co u r tm ayappr ove i tonl yaft era hea r i ng and on fi ndi ng t hati ti s fai r , r eas onabl e, and ade quat e. ( 3) T he part i es s eeki ng appr oval m us tfi l e a sta tem e n t id e n tify in g a n ya g re e m e n t m a d e in c o n n e c tio n w ith th e p ro p o sa l. ( 4) I f the cl as s act i on w as pr evi ous l ycert i fi ed u n d e r R u le 2 3 (b )(3 ), th e c o u rt m a yre f u se to appr ove a set t l ementunl es s i taff or ds a new oppor tuni t yt o r eques texcl us i o n t o i ndi vi dual c las s m e m b e rs w h o h a d a n e a rlier o p p o rtu n ityto r eques texcl us i on butdi d notdo s o. ( 5) A ny cl as s m emberm ayobj ectt o t he pr opos al i f i tr equi r es cour tappr oval under t hi s s ubdi vi s i on ( e) ; t he obj ect i on m aybe w i t hdr aw n onl yw i t h t he c o u rt’s a p p ro v a l. F ed

. R
. C iv. P. 23 (e). 2 di s m i s s al s , or compromi s es . I tcannotexpand the boundar i es of fede r al cour tj ur i s di ct i on underA r t i cl e I II. H er e, t he D i s t r i ct3 C our tgave e ffe ctt o a congr es s i onal m andat e, t he C r edi tand D ebi tC ar d R ece i pt C l ar i fi cat i on A ct of 2007 ( t he “Cl ar i fi cat i on A ct” or the “A ct”), P u b

. L
. N o . 1 1 0 -24 1 , 1 2 2 S tat
. 1 5 6 5 (20 0 8 ), an ena ctm entt hateff

ect i vel y s t r i pped s t andi ng for cl ai m s bas ed so lely o n th e p rin tin g o f a re c e ip t co n tain in g th e e x p ira tio n d a te o f a c re d it o r d e b it c a rd , i d. , § 3( a)

. C ongr es s i ns t ruct ed thatt he A cts houl d be “a ppl [i ed] t o anyact i on, ot her than an a ct i on w hi ch h as bec om e fi nal , ” i d. , § 3( b) , m eani ng t hatt he A ct appl i ed t o t hi s cas e bec aus e att he t i m e i tw as pas s ed the D i s t r i ct C our thad noty ethel d a fai r nes s hear i ng, i s s ued fi nal appr oval of the s et t l ement , orent er ed fi nal j udgm ent
. A l t hough I d isa g re e w ith th e D istric t C o u r t’ s re lian c e o n R u le 2 3 (e ) in r eac hi ng i t s out come, beca us e I concl ude t hat t he C l ar i fi cat i on A ctr ender ed the named pl ai nt i ffs ’ cas es m oot , I w oul d r eac h a s i m i l arout come. I w oul d vaca t e t he j udgm ent on t he pl eadi ngs in f av o r of V erizo n an d rem an d this case to the D istri ct C o u rt w i t h i ns t ruct i ons t o di s m i s s t he nam ed pl ai nt i ffs ’ compl ai nt s as m o o t. B efor e tur ni ng t o t hi s i s s ue, how ever , I m us texpl ai n t he or i gi ns of the C l ar i fi cat i on A ct , and the pr ocedur al and fa ctual pos tur e of t hi s cas e— as pect s of t hi s cas e t hatt he maj or i t yal l but ov erl oo ks.T h e F a ir C re d it R e p o rtin g A c t w a s “ p a ss e d in 1 9 7 0 to 2 i ns ur e thatcons um err epor t i ng agenc i es exer ci s e thei r‘ gr ave r es pons i bi l i t i es ’ r egar di ng t he ‘ as s embl i ng and ev aluat i ng [of] c o n su m e r c re d it an d o th e r in f o rm a tio n o n c o n su m e rs’ w ith ‘f a irn e ss , im p a rtiality , an d a re sp e c t f o r th e c o n su m e r’s rig h t to pr i vacy . ’ 15 U

. S. C

. § 1681( a) ( 3) and ( 4)

. ” H ou gh t on v. Ins. C rim e P re v e n tio n In st. , 7 9 5 F
. 2 d 3 2 2 , 3 2 3 -24 (3d C ir

. 1 9 8 6 ). 4 I. T he F ai r C r edi t R epor t i ng A ct , 15 U
. S. C

. § 1681 et s eq. , 2 w a s a m e n d e d in 2 0 0 3 b yth e F a ir a n d A c c u ra te C re d it T ra n sa c tio n A c t (“ F A C T A ” ), P u b . L . N o . 1 0 8 -1 5 9 , 1 1 7 S tat. 1 9 5 2 (2 0 0 3 ), t o , in tera lia , p re v e n t id e n tityth e f t. T o se rv e th is e n d , F A C T A , su b

jec t to a f

e w e x c e p tio n s n o t re le v a n t to th is app eal , prohibi t ed the el ect ron ic p ri nti ng of m ore than t he las t fiv e d igit s o f a c red ito r de b itca rd a cc o u n t nu m b er o r th e c ard ’s e x p ira tio n d a te o n a re c e ip t: [ N ] o p e rso n th a t ac c e p ts c re d it ca rd s o r d e b it car ds fort he tr ansac t i on of bus i nes s s hal l pr i nt m or e t ha n t h e l a s t 5 d i g i t s o f t h e c a r d n u mbe ror th e e x p ira tio n d a te u p o n a n y re c e ip t p ro v id e d to t he ca r dhol deratt he poi ntof s al e ort r ans act i on. 15 U
. S. C

. § 1681c( g) ( 1)

. T hi s pr ohi bi t i on beca m e ef fec t i ve on D ec em b e r 4 , 2 0 0 6 , three y ea rs af ter th e d ate o f F A C T A ’s enactm ent, for “dev i ce[s] t hat el ect roni cal l y pri nt[ed] recei pts
.

. . t hat[w er e] i n us e bef or e J anuary1, 2005. ” I d. §5 1681c( g) ( 3) ( A )

. Fordevi ces fi r s tputi nt o u s e “on oraft er J anuary1, 2005, ” the pr ohi bi t i on beca m e ef fec ti v e o n e y ear a f te r F A C T A ’s e n a c tm e n t, o n D e c e m b e r 4 , 2 0 0 4
. I d. § 1 6 8 1 c(g )(3)(B ).
In d iv id u a ls w h o w ill f u llyf a il t o c o m p lyw ith th is d e a d lin e risk c iv il l iab ili tyu n d e r th e F a ir C re d it R e p o rtin g A c t: A nyper s on w ho w i l l ful l yfai l s t o compl yw i t h any re q u ire m e n t im p o se d u n d e r [ th e F a ir C re d it R e po rt i ng A ct ] w i t h r espect t o any con sum er is l i abl e t o t hatcons um eri n an amount equal t o t he su m o f -- ( 1) ( A) a n y a c t u a l d amages sust ai ned byt he co nsum e r as a resu l tof the fa i l ur e ordamages of n o t l ess th an $ 1 0 0 an d n o t m o re th a n $ 1 ,0 0 0 ; o r . . . ( 2) s uch amountof puni t i ve d a ma g e s a s t h e c o u r tma ya l l o w; and ( 3 ) i n t h e c a s e o f

a n ys u c c e s s f

ul act i on t o enfor ce a nyl i abi l i t yunder t hi s s ect i on, t he co s t s of the ac t i on tog ethe r w ith rea so n ab le att o rne y ’s f e e s a s d e ter m in e d b yth e c o u rt.6 1 5 U
. S

. C

. § 1 6 8 1 n (a).
In Ju n e o f

2 0 0 8 , C o n g re ss p a ss e d th e C lar if ica tio n A c t, w hi ch modi fi ed the ci vi l l i abi l i t y pr ovi s i on t o excl ude i ns t ance s bet w e e n Dec e mbe r 4 , 2 0 0 4 , a n d J u n e 3 , 2 0 0 8 , whe r e an in d iv id u a l d id n o t re m o v e a n e x p ira tio n d a te o f a c re d it o r d e b it c a r d f r o m ar e c e i p t , b u to t h e r wi s e c o mp l i e d wi t h F AC T A: [A ] nyper s on w ho pr i nt ed an e xpi r at i on d ate on anyr ece i pt pr ovi ded t o a cons um ercar dhol derat a poi ntof s al e ort r ans act i on betw een D ece m ber 4 , 2 0 0 4 , an d th e d a te o f th e e n a c tm e n t o f

th is s ubs ect i on [J une 3, 2008] butot herw i s e compl i ed w ith the re q u ir em en ts of [1 5 U
. S

. C

. § 1 6 8 1 c(g )] fors uch r ece i p t sh al l notbe i n w i l l ful noncompl i ance w i t h [that ] s ect i on . . . byr eas on o f p rin tin g su c h e x p ira tio n d a te o n th e re c e ip t. P u b

. L
. N o . 1 1 0 -24 1 , § 3 (a) (co d ifi ed at 15 U
. S

. C

. § 1 6 8 1 n (d)). T h is e xcl us i on of expi r at i on dat e cl ai m s “appl [i ed] t o any a c tio n , o ther th an an ac ti o n w h ich ha [d ] b ec o m e fina l

. . . w i t houtr egar d t o w hethe rs uch ac t i on [w a] s br oughtbefor e or a f te r t h e d a t e o f t h e e n a c tm e n t o f th [ e ] [ C la ri f

ic a tio n ] A c t.” P u b . L . N o . 1 1 0 -2 4 1 , § 3 (b ).
T h e p u rpo se o f th e A ct w as “ to en su re tha t con su m ers su ff ering fro m an yac tual h arm to the ircre d ito r i d en ti ty[w e]re pr ot ect ed w h il e s i m ul t aneous l yl i m i t i ng abus i ve l aw s ui t s t hat d[id] no t prot ectcon sum ers bu ton l yres ult [ed] i n incr eased co st7 t o bus i nes s and pot ent i al l yi ncr eas ed pr i ces t o cons um er s . ” I d. , § 2( b)

. I n Sect i on 2 of the A ct , C ongr es s set fo rt h i t s fi ndi ngs expl ai ni ng it s d ec isi on t o excl ude l i abi l i t yfort he pr i nt i ng of a car d’ s expi r at i on dat e. C ongr es s acknow l edged t hati tenac t ed FA C T A t o r educe ident i t yt heft , and that , as w r i t t en i n 2003, F A C T A p roh ibite d the p ri n ti n g o f a cre d ito r de b itca rd’s ex p ir ati o n d ate o r m o re tha n the last five d igit s o f th at ca rd’s ac co u n t n u m b e r. Id. , § 2( a) ( 1) and ( 2)

. C ongr es s found that t hes e r equi r ement s w er e mi s t akenl yunder s t o o d b y“[m]a ny m er chant s ” as r equi r i ng onl ya truncat i on of the “a ccount num berdow n t o t he l as t5 di gi t s [. ] ” I d. , § 2( a) ( 3)

. I tal s o found t hatFA C T A r es ul t ed i n “hundr eds of l aw s ui t s . . . al l egi ng that t he fa i l ur e t o r emove t he expi r at i on dat e w as a w i l l ful vi ol at i on of the Fai rC r edi tR epor t i ng A cteven w her e the ac countnum ber w as pr oper l yt runcat ed. ” I d. , § 2(a) (4)

. A ccordi ng t o C on gress , “[n] one of thes e l aw s ui t s cont ai ned an al l egat i on of har m t o any cons um er ’ s i dent i t y . ” I d. , § 2( a) ( 5)

. C ongr es s fur t herfound t hat“[d] es pi t e r epea t edl y b eing deni ed cl as s cert i fi cat i on, t he co n ti n u ed ap p ea li n g an d fil ing o f th ese law su it s rep rese n t[ed ] a s i gni fi cantbur den on the hundr eds of compani es t hatha[d] been s ued and coul d r ai s e pr i ces t o cons um er s w i t houtcorr es pondi ng cons um erpr ot ect i on benef i t
. ” I d. , § 2 (a)(7). II. V eri z on w a s on e of

t he manymer c ha nt s t ha tCongr ess found had f

ai l ed t o r emove cr edi t ordebi tcar d expi r at i on dat es f ro m re c e ip ts
. See i d. , § 2 (a )(3 ) . In A u g u st o f 2 0 0 7 , N ico le8 E hr heart fi l ed one of t he “hundr eds of l aw s ui t s . . . al l egi ng t hat t he fa i l ur e t o r emove t he expi r at i on dat e w as a w i l l ful vi ol at i on o f th e F a irC re d it R e p o rt in g A c t,” i d. , § 2( a) ( 4) , i n t he U ni t ed St at es D i s t r i ctC our tfor the W est ern D i s t r i ctof Penns y l vani a. She fi l ed hercompl ai ntas a cl as s act i on, purpor t i ng t o r epr es ent a cl as s of i ndi vi dual s harm ed byV er i zon’ s pr i nt i ng of cr edi tand debi tcar d acc ountnum ber s and expi r at i on dat es , buther per s onal i nj ur yw as l i m i t ed t o t he pr i nt i ng of an e xpi r at i on dat e. She al l eged thaton J un e 7, 2007, V er i zon gave heran el ectr oni cal l ypr i nt ed r ece i pt on w hi ch the expi r at i on dat e of he r cred it o r debi tcar d had bee n pr i nt ed. A l t hough t her e w er e no s peci fi c “al l egat i on[s ] of harm t o anycons um er ’ s i dent i t y , ” i d. , § 2(a) (5), E h rhear tbeli eved t hat s he d eser ved redr ess. A c c o rd in g to h e r c o m p l a in t, V e ri z o n v io la te d 1 5 U .S .C . § 16 81 c(g) , enti t l i ng her to st atutorydam ages, pu nit i ve d am ages, cos t s , and at t or ney fee s . I n D ece m ber of 2007, t h e D is t r i ct C ou rt referred E hrheart ’s act i on t o m ediat i on , and by late Februaryof 2008 the part i es had agr eed t o s et t l e. A si m i l ar pu t at i ve cl ass act i on had been fi l ed b yJohn J. G arlan d in the U n it ed S tat es D istri ct C o u rtfo r th e W estern D istric t o f

T e n n e ss e e o n Ju ly2 7 , 2 0 0 7 . U n lik e E h rh e a rt, G ar l and al l eged hi s per s onal i nj ur y i n an ambi guous fas hi on, not stat ing w h ethe r he rec eive d a re ce ipt w ith h is cred ito r de b itca rd a c c o u n t n u m b e r, ex p ira tio n d a te, o r b o th p rin ted o n it. O n A p ril 1 4 , 2 0 0 8 , G arlan d ’s ac ti o n w as tr an sfe rred to the W estern D istri ct of

P en n sy lvan ia an d co n so li d ated w ith E h rhe art’s act i on. O n A pr i l 22, 2008, E hr h ea rt , G ar l and, and V er i zon9 exec ut ed a Cl as s A ct i on Set t l ement A gr eement ( t he “Sett l ement A g ree m en t” or the “A g ree m en t”).

The Set t l em ent

A gr eem ent T h e S e ttl e m e n t A g re e m e n t w a s lim ited to in d iv id u a ls w h o re c e iv e d e lec tro n ica llyp rin ted re c e ip ts d isp layi n g a d e b it card’ s expir at i on date. T he A greem ent defined the “C l ass” as : A l l person s w ho r ece i ved el ectr oni cal l ypr i nt ed r ece i pt s di s pl ay i ng an ex pi r at i on dat e fr om V eri zo n W i r el es s att he poi ntof s al e or t ransact i o n i n a V e r i z o n W i r e l ess C om m uni cat i ons s t or e, i n a tr ans act i on occurr i ng betw een D ece m ber4, 2006 and A pr i l 21, 2008, whe r e p a yme n t was ma d e wi t h a d e b i t c a r d and au tho ri ze d b ya p erso n al i d en ti fica ti o n n u m b er. T he part i es s t i pul at ed and a gr eed thatt he s et t l ementw as condi t i oned on the D i s t r i ctC our t ’ s pr el i m i n ary and fi nal appr oval

. A ccor di ng t o t he A gr eement , a pre l i m i naryappr oval or der w as neede d t o: ( 1) cert i fy t he cl ass f o r s et t l ement purpos es ; ( 2) appoi nta cl as s r epr es ent at i ve; ( 3) confi r m t hatt he lik e lih o o d o f

f in a l ap p ro v a l o f

th e se ttl e m e n t w a s s u f

f ic ie n t to w arr ants endi ng outnot i ce t o t he cl as s; a n d (4) s chedul e a fai rnes s hear i ng t o det erm i ne th e fa irnes s , adequa cy , and r eas onabl enes s of the Set t l ementA gr eement , and ( 5) t o ent er fi nal j udgm ent
. Set t l ementA gr eement8 ( ¶ 1. 19). O n ce the D i s t r i ctC our t ent er ed t he pr el i m i naryappr oval or derand not i ce“F i nal” w as defined as: 3 ( i ) t he dat e of f

i nal aff i r m ance on an appe al of the Ju d g m e n t; (ii ) th e d a te o f f in a l d is m iss a l w ith pr ej udi ce of

t he l ast pendi ng appea l fr om t he J udgm ent ; or( i i i ) i f no appe al i s fi l ed, t he expi rati on dat e of the t i m e fort he fi l i ng or not i ci ng of any for m of val i d appea l fr om t he 10 w as di ssem i nated t o the c las s, i tw as t o co nd uct a fai rness hear i ng, as r equi r ed byR ul e 23( e)

. I f the Set t l ementA gr eement m ett he r equi r ement s of R ul e 23( e) , t hen the D i s t r i ctC our tw as to e n ter a n o rd e r o f

f in a l ap p ro v a l an d e n ter f in a l ju d g m e n t. T he part i es agr eed thatif they di d notr ece i ve fi nal appr oval of the s et t l ementori f the as s oci at ed j udgm entdi d not become fi nal forany r eas on, t he A gr eementw oul d be “nul l and voi d a b in iti o ”: I n t he eve ntt hatt h e C our tdoes notexec ut e and fi l e the O r derG r ant i ng Fi nal A p p roval of Set t l e me n t , o ri n t h e e v e n tt h a tt h e a s s o c i a t ed J udgm ent does not become Fi nal for anyrea s on, th is S e ttl e m e n t A g re e m e n t sh a ll b e d e e m e d n u ll and voi d a b in iti o , i ts hal l be of no for ce oreff ect w hat s oever , [and] i ts hal l notb e r efe r r ed t o or u tiliz e d f o r a n yp u rp o s e w h a ts o e v e r[ .] Set t l ementA gr eement2; i d. at15- 16 ( ¶ 2. 4. 8 ) (The par t i es 3Ju d g m e n t. S ett lem en t A g ree m en t 6 (¶ 1

. 1 0 ). 11 a g re e d th a t “ [ i]f

th e C o u rt re

jec t[ e d ] th e S tip u latio n , fa il[e d ] to ent ert he O r derof Fi nal A ppr oval , orfai l [ed] t o ent ert he J udgm ent , t h[e] A gr eement s hal l be voi d a b in iti o , and V er i zon

. . . s hal l h ave no obl i gat i ons t o m ake a nypaym ent s undert he Set t l ementA gr eement
. ”)

. I n t he eve ntt hatt he S ett l ement A g re e m e n t w a s “ te rm in a te d p u rs u a n t to its t e rm s . . . o r . . . [ w a ]s n o t ef

f e c tu a ted f

o r a n yre a so n ,” th e litig a tio n w a s to pr ocee d “as i f no part yhad eve ragr eed t o [the] pr opos ed se ttl e m e n t, w ith o u t p re ju d ice to th e rig h t o f a n yp a rtyto cont i nue t o s eek ort o oppos e cl as s cert i fi cat i on. ” I d. at5. P r el i m i nar

y Approval

of the Set t l em ent

A gr eem ent O n A pr i l 22, 2008, t he part i es fi l ed a joint m ot i on for pr el i m i naryappr oval of the Sett l ementA gr eement , r eques t i ng th a t th e D istric t C o u rt a p p ro v e th e ter m s o f th e s e ttl e m e n t, cert i fyt he c l ass for s et t l em ent, app rove t he p roposed cl ass not i ce t o be s entt o t he cl as s , and s chedul e a f ai r nes s hear i ng. O n A p ri l 24 , 2 0 0 8 , the D istri ct C o u rtg ran ted p reli m inary app roval of the S et t l em ent A greem ent, and schedu l ed a f ai rness hear i ng forA ugus t27, 2008.12 V acat urof the O r derG r ant i ng P r el i m i nar y Approval O n J une 9, 2008, s i x day s aft ert h e p ass age of t he C lari fica ti o n A ct, V erizo n m o v ed to vac ate th e D istri ct C o u rt ’s pr el i m i naryappr oval or der

. I n i t s m ot i on, V er i zon poi nt ed out t hat“C ongr es s enac t ed a l aw t hatunequi vocal l yext i ngui s hed [ th e ] [ p ] l a in tif

f s ’ c la im s u n d e rl y in g th e p ro p o s e d s e ttle m e n t.” B eca us e “no val id cl ai m s exi s t [ed] t o s et t l e, ” V er i zon ar gued, “the pr op o s ed s et t l ement[w a] s not‘ fai r , adequa t e and r eas onabl e’ ” and t he D i s t r i ct C our t coul d not pr ov ide fi nal a p p ro v a l f

o r th e se ttl e m e n t. O n Ju n e 1 3 , 2 0 0 8 , the D istri ct C o u rtg ran ted V erizo n ’s m o ti o n to v ac ate the p reli m inaryap p rov al ord e r. In it s o rde r, t he D ist ri ctC our tr eas oned that“C ongr es s m ade c l eart hatt he [C l ar i fi cat i on] A ct ‘

. . . appl [i ed] t o any act i on, ot her t h an an act i on w hi ch ha[ d] become fi nal

. . . ’ ” and t hat“[t ] hi s l i t i gat i on [w a] s notfin al, ” as i thad y ett o gi ve fi nal appr oval t o t he Set t l ementA gr eement
. B eca us e C ongr es s el i m i nat ed the p lain tiff s’ c a u se o f a c tio n , th e D istric t C o u rt re a so n e d , ith a d to v a c a te its p re lim in a rya p p ro v a l o f th e S e ttl e m e n t A g re e m e n t. T h e p lai n ti ff

s m o v ed fo r re co n side rati o n an d the D istri ct C o u rt d en ied th e m o ti o n , rejecti n g the arg u m en t tha t i t sho u ld ign o re t he A ctand s i m pl yenfor ce the Se tt l e me ntA gr eementnegot i at ed byt he part i es beca us e i t s onl yr emai ni ng r ol e underR ul e 23( e) w as t o ens ur e thatt he s et t l ementw as fai r, reas onabl e and adequa t e t o t he abs ent ee c l as s m ember s . A s i de fr om r ei t er at i ng i t s vi ew t hat the C l ari f

ica tio n A ctexti ng uis hed t he p l ai nti ffs’13 cl ai m , t he D i stri ct C ou rt add ed thatun der R ule 23(e) , “[n]o clas s act i on s et t l ementcan be fai r , adequat e orr eas onabl e w hen C ongr es s has det erm i ned thatsuch r el i ef i s unfai rand u n re a s o n a b le .” V eri zon t hen m ov ed f or j ud gm ent on t he p l eadings, assert i ng t hat j ud gm ent w as w arr anted becau se the p l ai nti ffs’ cl ai m s had been el i m i nat ed byt he C l ar i fi cat i on A ct
. T he p lain tiff s o p p o se d th e m o tio n , r e ly in g o n th e sa m e a rg u m e n ts offe r ed i n t hei roppos i t i on t o V er i zon’ s m ot i o n to v acat e the preli m ina r yappr oval or der

. N ot abl y , t heyneveras s er t ed that t heyhad cl ai m s ot hert han thos e bas ed on t he fai l ur e t o r emove cr edi tordebi tcar d expi r at i on dat es . T he D i s t r i ctC our tgr ant ed V er i zon’ s m ot i on for j udgm ent on t he pl eadi ngs on Sept ember 25, 2008. T he pl ai nt i ffs fi l ed t hi s t i m el yappea l , chal l engi ng four o rd e rs b yth e D istric t C o u rt, all o f w h ich tu rn o n w h e th e r it pr oper l yvaca t ed i t s pr el i m i naryappr oval of the Set t l ement A g ree m en t: (1) the Ju n e 1 3 , 2 0 0 8 o rde r gra n ti n g V erizo n ’s m ot i on t o vaca t e pr el i m i naryapprova l ; ( 2) t he Sept ember25, 2 008 or derdeny i ng t he mot i on forr econs i der at i on; ( 3) t he Sept ember25, 2008 or dergr ant i n g V er i zon’ s m ot i on for j udgm enton t he pl eadi ngs ; and ( 4) t he j udgm ententer ed on Sept ember25, 2008.14 III
. T he C l ar i fi cat i on A ct , w i t ho u tques t i on, ext i ngui s hed E hr heart ’ s i nj ur y - i n- fac t as al l eged i n hercompl ai nt
. W i t hout an i nj ur y - i n- fac t , a r equi r ementforA r t i cl e I I I s t andi ng, t he D i s t r i ctC our tw as obl i gated t o di s m i s s E hr heart ’ s act i on as m ooti m m edi at el y . I tl acke d t he author i t yt o hol d t he r equi r ed fai rness h ea ri ng, ent eran or derof fi nal appr oval fort he set t l em ent, or ent er fi nal ju dg m ent i n the act i on . T o d o so w o u l d h a v e v i o l a t e d A r t i c l e I I I ’ s “ c a s e o rc o n t r o v e r s y” l i m i t at i on on i t s j ur i s di ct i on. G ar l and’ s compl ai nt , on t he other hand, l eftopen the poss i bi l i t y t hat V er i zon pri nt ed more t han the lastfiv e d igit s o f h is cred ito r de b itc a rd ac co u n t nu m b er— a v iab le c laim n o tw ith sta n d in g th e C lar if ica tio n A c t— b u t h is a rg u m e n ts th ro u g h o u t th is liti g a tio n sh o w th a t h e , li k e E h rh e a rt, s uffe r ed an i nj ur ybas ed s ol el yon t he pri nt i ng of t he expi r at i on d a te o f h is c re d it o r d e b it c a rd

. T h u s, I lik e w ise c o n c lu d e th a t, aft er t he pass age of the C l ar i fi cat i on A ct , G ar l and l os ts t andi ng a n d h is c laim w a s re n d e re d m o o t. I r each th ese con cl usi on s based o n tw o o bservat i on s. F i rs t , t he C l a r i fi c a t i on A ctapp l i ed to both plai nti ffs’ com plai nts , des pi t e the D i s t r i ctC our t ’ s i s s uance of pr el i m i naryappr oval for th e S e ttl e m e n t A g re e m e n t. S e c o n d , A rticle III re q u ire s th a t a pl ai nt i ff have an i nj ur y - i n- fac t , and t he A ct el i m i nat ed the pri nti ng of a c redi tor debit c a rd ’s e xp i rat i on date as a cogni zabl e i nj ur y for w hi ch an i ndi vi dual m ay s eek r el i ef unde r F AC T A.15 A. T he C l ar i fi cat i on A ctpl ai nlyext i ngui s hed ca us es of ac ti o n b ase d so lel yo n the p ri n ti n g o f a cre d ito r de b itca rd’s expi r at i on dat e pr i ort o t he D i s t r i ct C our t ’ s fi nal appr oval of the s et t l ementand entr yof fi nal j udgm ent
. I n r el evantpar t , t he A ct s t at ed: [A ] nyper s on w ho pr i nt ed an e xpi r at i on d ate on anyr ece i pt pr ovi ded t o a cons um ercar dhol derat a poi ntof s al e ort r ans act i on betw een D ece m ber 4 , 2 0 0 4 , an d th e d a te o f th e e n a c tm e n t o f

th is s ubs ect i on [J une 3, 2008] butot herw i s e compl i ed w ith the re q u ir em en ts of [1 5 U
. S

. C

. § 1 6 8 1 c(g )] fors uch r ece i p t sh al l notbe i n w i l l ful noncompl i ance w i t h [that ] s ect i on . . . byr eas on o f p rin tin g su c h e x p ira tio n d a te o n th e re c e ip t. P u b

. L
. N o . 1 1 0 -24 1 , § 3 (a) (co d ifi ed at 15 U
. S

. C

. § 1 6 8 1 n (d)). T hi s pr ovi s i on appl i es t o “anyact i on, ot hert han an a ct i on w hi ch has become fi nal

. . . w i t ho utr egar d t o w hethers uch ac t i on [ w a ]s b ro u g h t b e f

o re o r a f ter th e d a te o f

th e e n a c tm e n t o f

th is A c t.” P u b . L . N o . 1 1 0 -2 4 1 , § 3 (b ). A l t hough C ongr es s di d not defi ne t he t erm “fi nal ” i n t he C lar if ica tio n A c t, i t is o b v io u s tha t it w a s re f e rrin g to f

in a lityin t he j udi ci al s ens e, as i tenac t ed the l egi s l at i on t o r ei n i n “abus i ve l aw s ui t s , ” i d. , § 2( b)

. C o n g ress ’ s fi ndi ngs expl ai ned that“the co n ti n u ed ap p ea li n g an d fil ing o f th ese law su it s rep rese n t[ed ] a16 s i gni fi cant bur den on t he hundr eds of compani es t hathave be en s u e d a n d c o u l d wel l r a i s e p r i c e s t o c o n s u me r s w i t hout corr es pondi ng cons um erp rot ect i on benef i t
. ” I d. , § 2 (a)(7). T aki ng i nt o acc ountt he A ct’s goal of el i m i nat i ng w as t eful law su its, I co n c lu d e th a t C o n g re ss in ten d e d th e f e d e ra l c o u rts to appl yt he C l ar i fi cat i on A ctt o anyact i on that w as not , i n t he ju d ic ia l s e n s e , “ f

in a l.”
I n t he j udi ci al cont ext , a “‘ fi nal deci s i on’ gener al l y i s one w hi ch ends t he l i t i gat i on on t he m er i t s and l eave s not hi ng fort he cour t t o do butexec ut e the j udgm ent
. ” C at l i n v. U ni t ed Stat es , 324 U
. S. 229, 233 ( 1945)

. I n cl as s act i on l i t i gat i on w her e the par t i es have ne got i at ed a s et t l ement , volun t arydi s m i s s al , or compromi s e, R ul e 23(e ) l ay s outpr ocedur es forachi evi ng f in a lityin th e d isp u te. F e d . R . C iv . P . 2 3 ( e )

. T h a t ru le estab li sh es that, reg ard less o f th e p arti es’ c o m p rom ise, the c o u rt m us thol d a fa i r nes s hear i ng, F ed

. R
. C i v. P. 23( e) ( 2) , and det erm i ne w h ethe rt o appr ove the s et t l ementbefor e the mat t er i s fi nal , Fed. R
. C i v. P. 23( e)

. T hi s l ong- s t andi ng proce dur al r equi r ementfi r s tappea r ed i n t he 1966 am endment s t o t he rul e. See F e d . R . C iv . P . 2 3 (1 9 6 6 ) (s tatin g th a t “ [ a ] c las s a c tio n sh a ll n o t be . .

. co m p rom ised w ith o u t th e a p p rov al of the c o u rt ”). S ince at l ea st 20 0 3 , R u le 2 3 (e ) ha s ex p li cit lystat ed that co u rt ap p rov al of

a class acti o n sett lem en t m ay b e give n “o n lyaf ter a hear i ng and on fi ndi ng t hat [the s et t l ement ] i s fai r , r eas onabl e, a n d a d e q u a te.” F e d . R . C iv . P . 2 3 (e )(2 ); s ee i d. , A dvi so ry C o m m itt e e N o tes o n 2 0 0 3 A m e n d m e n ts. C o n g re ss w a s w e ll aw are o f th e 2 0 0 3 am en d m en ts to R u le 23 b ec au se th eyw ere“The Feder al R ul es of C i vi l Pr ocedur e ar e notenac t ed 4 byC ongr es s , but C ongr es s par t i ci pat es i n t he rul emaki ng pr oces s . ” B u s. G uides, Inc. v. C hrom ati c C om m c’ns En t ers. , 498 U
. S. 533, 552 ( 1991) ( i nt ernal quot at i on m arks and ci t at i ons om i t t ed)

. “C ongr es s has undoubt ed pow ert o r egul at e the pr act i ce a nd pr ocedur e of feder al cour t s , ” Si bbach v. W i l s on & C o. , I nc. , 312 U
. S. 1, 9 ( 1941) , s o i f i tdi s agr eed w i t h a pr opos ed r u le p r o m u lg a ted b yth e S u p re m e C o u rt, i t co u ld “ v o te to abr ogat e [that ] rul e, ” I

n r e Ri char ds , 2 1 3 F
. 3 d 7 7 3 , 7 8 6 (3d C ir

. 2 0 0 0 ). T he A gr eement w as expr es s l ym ade c ondi t i onal byt he

5 par t i es , and i f the D i s t r i ct C o u rt “f ai l [ed] t o ent ert he O r derof Fi nal A ppr oval, o r fa i l [ed] t o ent ert he J udgm ent , t h[e] A g r eement[w oul d be r ender ed] voi d a b in iti o [

. ] ” Se t t l e m ent 17 p a s se d o n to it fo r re v iew p u rsu a n t to th e R u les E n a b lin g A c t. See 28 U
. S. C

. §§ 2072, 2074. T h u s, w hen C ongr es s enac t ed 4 t he C l ar i fi cat i on A ct and s peci fi ed thati tappl i ed t o “anyact i on, ot hert han an a ct i on w hi ch has become fi nal , ” Pub. L
. N o. 110- 241, § 3( b) , i tknew t hata cl as s act i on s et t l ementpendi ng di s t r i ctcour tappr oval underR ul e 23( e) w as not an ac t i on w hi ch h a d b e c o m e f

in a l. A c c o rd in g ly , b e c a u se th e D is tr ict C o u rt h a d y e t to conducta fa i r nes s hear i ng, issue fi nal appr oval of the s ett lem ent , orent erfi nal j udgm enti n t hi s cas e— al l act i vi t i es cont empl at ed underR ul e 23( e) and r equi r ed undert he Set t l ementA gr eement

— t he l i t i gat i on coul d nothave be en fi nal 5A gr eement16 ( ¶ 2. 4. 8)

. Fur therm or e, t he A gr eement co n tem p lat ed the p o ssibil itythat the s ett lem en t w o u ld n o t occ u r. In thatevent , t he l i t i gat i on w oul d “pr ocee d as i f no part yhad e v e r a g re e d to su c h p ro p o se d se ttl e m e n t, w it h o u t p re ju d ice to t he r i gh t of any party t o conti nu e t o s eek or t o o p p o se c lass cert i fi cat i on. ” I

d. at5. W e h av e hel d t hata pr el i m i naryappr oval or der 6 “e stab li sh es a n init ial p resu m p ti o n o f f airne ss w h en the c o u rt fi nds t hat : ( 1) t he negot i at i ons occurr ed atarm ’ s l ength; ( 2) t her e w as s uffi ci entdi s covery ; ( 3) t he pr opo n ent s of the s e t t l e m e n ta r e e x p e r i e n c e d i n s i m i l a rl i t i g a t i o n ; a n d ( 4 ) o n l y a s m al l fr act i on of the cl as s obj ect ed. ” I n r e GM Truc k , 55 F. 3d a t 7 8 5
. 18 a s o f t h e d a t e t h e Cl a r i f

i c a t i o n Ac twa s p a s s e d , J u n e 3 , 2 0 0 8
. As s uch, t he C l ar i fi cat i on A ct appl i ed t o t he Ehrhe ar tand G ar l and a c tio n s . T he D i s t r i ctC our t ’ s pr el i m i naryappr oval o f the Set t l ementA gr eementcannot r at i onal l y be cons t rued as a fi nal di s pos i t i on of thi s cas e i n anys ens e. W hi l e i ti s t rue thatan or derof pr el i m i nary approva l m ayes t abl i s h “an i ni t i al p re s u m p tio n o f f

a ir n e s s ” in s o m e c ir c u m s ta n c e s , In re G ener al Mo to rs C o rp . P ick -U

p T ru c k Fu e l T a n k P ro d u c ts L ia b ili ty Lit iga ti on , 5 5 F
. 3 d 7 6 8 , 7 8 5 (3d C ir

. 1 9 9 5 ) [h ere inaf ter In re GM Truc k ] , t hatpr es um pt i on does not i nexor abl yr es ul ti n fi nal

6 appr oval of a s et t l ement
. “[I ] t i s cl ear t hat t he cour ts houl d not gi ve rubber

- s t amp appro val

. ” 4 W i l l i am B
. R ubens t ei n, A l baT h o se ni ne fa ct or s ar e: “( 1) t he compl exi t yand 7 dur at i on of the l i t i g at i on; ( 2) t he r eac t i on of the cl as s t o t he s et t lem en t; (3) t he s t age of t he pr ocee di ngs ; ( 4) t he r i s ks of es t abl i s hi ng l i abi l i t y ; ( 5) t he r i s ks of est abl i s hi ng damages ; ( 6) t he r i s ks of m ai nt ai ni ng a cl as s act i on; ( 7) t h e abi l i t yof the defe ndant s t o w i t hs t and a gr eat erj udgm ent ; ( 8) t he r ange of r e a s o n a b l e n e s s o f t h e s e t t l e m e n t i n l i g h t o f t h e b e s t r e c o v e r y; and ( 9) t he ra nge of r eas onabl enes s of the s et t l ementi n l i ghtof al l t he at t endant r i s ks of l i t i gat i on. ” I n r e GM Truc k , 55 F. 3d at 785. 19 C o n te , & H e rb e rt B . N e w b e rg , N ew b erg on C l as s A ct i ons § 1 1 .4 1 (4 th ed

. 2 0 0 9 ) [h ere inaf ter N ew ber g on C l as s A ct i ons ]. P ri or t o fi nal approval of a set t l em ent, t he d i stri ctcou rtm ust h o ld a f a irn e ss h e a rin g a n d e x a m in e a t lea st n in e f a c to rs to det erm i ne w het h er the s et t l ementi s fai r , r eas onabl e, and a d e q u a te
. I

n r e GM Truc k , 55 F. 3d at 785. T hi s exami nat i on 7 m us tbe “exa ct i ng and t hor ough” beca us e t he “adve r s ar i nes s of l i t i gat i on i s oft en l os t ” once par t i es agr ee t o s et t l e: T he s e t t l i n g p a r t i e s f r e q u e n t l yma k e a j o i nt pr es ent ati on of the bene fi t s of the s et t l ement w i t houts i gni fi canti nfor m at i on ab outany dr aw backs

. I f obj ect or s do notemer ge, t her e may be no l aw y er s orl i t i gant s cr i ti ci zi ng t he set t l em ent orseeki ng t o ex p o se fl aw s or abuses. E v e n if o b je c to rs a re p re se n t, th e ym ig h t sim p ly seek t o b e t reat ed d i fferent l yt han t he clas s as a w ho le, r athert han advoc at i ng forcl as s - w i de i nt er es t s . T he l ack of s i gni fi cantoppos i t i on m ay m e a n th a t th e se ttl e m e n t m e e ts th e re q u ire m e n ts of fa i r nes s , r eas onabl enes s , and ade quacy . O n t he o th e r h a n d , itm ig h t sig n if yn o m o re th a n in e rtia bycl as s m ember s ori tm ay indi cat e s ucce s s onN ot abl y , w hi l e w e r equi r e an e xact i ng and thor ough 8 re v iew b ya d istric t c o u rt, w e a lso g ra n t s u b sta n tial d e f e re n c e to t hat court ’s fact -fi nd i ng . A dis t ri ctco u rt’ s approv al of a c l ass act i on s et t l ementi s s ubj ectt o abus e of di s cr et i on r evi ew byan a p p e lla te c o u rt
. I

n r e C endant

C or p. Li t ig. , 264 F. 3d 286, 293 ( 3d C i r . 20 0 1 ) (ci t i ng I n r e GM Truc k , 5 5 F
. 3 d at 78 2 -83 ). T hus , t he di s t r i ct cour t ’ s fi ndi ngs need onl ys ur vi ve r evi ew for c le a r e rr o r. I

n r e GM Truc k , 55 F. 3d at783. 20 c o u n se l’s p a rt in o b tain in g , fr o m lik e lyo p p o n e n ts a n d c ritics , ag re e m e n ts n o t to o b jec t. M an u al fo r C o m p lex L it igation , F o u rth , § 2 1
. 6 1
. “E v en if t h ere ar e no orfew obj ect i ons oradver s e appea r ance s befor e or att he fai rnes s hear i ng, t he j udge mustens ur e that t her e i s a s uffi ci ent r ecor d as t o t he bas i s and j us t i fi cat i on fort he s et t l ement
. ” I d. , § 21. 635; Fed. R
. C i v. P. 23( e) ( 2) ( s t at i ng t hatt he courtm ay onl y appr ove t he s et t l ementon “ f i ndi ng t hat i t i s fai r , r eas onabl e, an d a d e q u a t e ” ) ( e mph a s i s a d d e d )

. “ Th e r e c o r d a n d f i n d i ngs m us tdemonst r at e t o a re vi ew i ng cour t t hat t he j udge has made t he r equi s i t e i nqui r y and has cons i der ed t he di ver s e i nt er es t s and t he requ i si t e factor s in d e ter m i ning t he set t l em ent’ s fai rness , r eason ab lene ss, and ad eq u ac y . ” M anualforC om pl ex Li t i gat i on, Four t h , § 2 1
. 6 3 5 ; Fe d

. R. Ci v . P. 2 3 ( e ) , Adv i s o r yCommi t t ee N o tes o n 2 0 0 3 A m e n d m e n ts (“ T h e f in d in g s m u st b e se t o u t in su f f icie n t d e tail to e x p lain to c las s m e m b e rs a n d th e a p p e llate co u rtthe f

ac tors that b ea r on ap p ly ing the s tand ard

. ”). 8
A di s t r i ctcour tm aydenyfi nal appr oval fora s et t l ement i n a v ari et yof si tuati on s, i ncludi ng w here absent cl ass m em bers’ i nt er es t s ar e nots erved, I n r e GM Truc k , 55 F. 3d at785, t he defe ndant“s el ect s among [pl ai nt i ff] at t or ney s forcompet i ng classe s an d n eg o ti ates an ag ree m en t w ith the att o rne y s w h o areSee B arbar a J
. R ot hs t ei n & T hom as E
. W il lging, 9 Managi ng C l as s A ct i on Li t igat i on: A P ocke t G ui de f orJudges 12- 16 ( Feder al J udi ci al C ent er2005) ( di s cus s i ng ot her se ttl e m e n t ter m s th a t ar e “ h o t b u tto n in d ica to rs” th a t “s h o w th e ir p o tential u n fa irn ess o n their fa ce ”). I ndeed, w hi l e r ecogni zi ng t he benef i t s of m ul t i

- fac t or 10 t es t s for R ul e 23( e)

— s uch as , s i gnal i ng t o di s t r i ctcour t s t hatt he i nqui r y i s fac t i nt ens i ve and r el i es on di s cr et i on, and pr ovi di ng par t i es a r oadmap fors et t l ement , J onathan R

. M ace y& G eoff r ey 21 w ill in g to a c c e p t th e lo w e s t c las s re c o v e ry(typ ica llyin excha nge forgener al at t or n eyfee s ) , ” M anual forC om pl ex L it igation , F o u rt h , § 2 1
. 6 1 , “c lass m em b ers [ rec eive ] i ll u so ry n o n m o n etaryb en ef

it s . . . w h ile g ran ti n g su b stan ti al m o n etary at t or neyfee aw ar ds , ” i d. , defe ndant s s eek t o “i m pos [e]

. . . s t r i ct e lig ib ili tyc o n d iti o n s . . . [ su c h ] th a t m a n y[ c las s] m e m b e rs w ill be unl i kel y t o cl ai m b en ef i t s , ” i d. , the se ttl e m e n t trea ts “s i m i l a r l ys i tu a t e d c l a s s me mbe r s di ffe r ent l y , ” i d. , t he s et t l ement r el eas es “cl ai m s agai ns tpar t i es w ho di d notcontr ibu te t o t he clas s s et t l ement , ” i d. , o r t h e s e t t l e me n t r e l e a s e s “ c l a i m s of par t i es w ho r ece i ved no compens at i on i n t he s et t l ement , ” i d. 9
T h e f ac tors co n side red in d eterm ining w h ethe r a s e ttle m e n t is f

a ir , re a s o n a b le , a n d a d e q u a te , s ee s upr a n . 7 , “a re [ju st] a g u ide; an u n fa v o rab le c o n clus ion reg ard ing o n e o r m o re fac t or s does notaut om at i cal l yr ender t he sett l ement unfai r . ” 2 J o s e p h M . M c L a u g h lin , McLaughl i n on C l as s A ct i ons : Law and P r act i ce § 6: 7 ( 6th ed. 20 10 ). E ach set t l em ent agr eem ent m ust be ev al uated based o n the part i cularci rcum st ances o f t hat cas e and, as s how n byt he exa m pl es a b o v e, ther e ar e manyr eas ons w hya di s t r i ctcour tm ay not i s s ue fi nal appr oval fora s et t l ement a g re e m e n t. 10P . M ille r, J u d icia l R e v iew o

f C la ss A c tio n S e ttl e m e n ts , 1 J
. of L egal A nal y s i s 167, 172 ( 2009)

— s om e comm ent at or s have s ugges t e d t h a ts u c h t e s t s s u f f e rf r o m a v a r i e t yo f

d e f i c i e n ci es t hat resul ti n “conf

us i on and i ncons i s t encyi n s t andar ds for r evi ew of cl as s act i on s et t l ement s [. ] ” Id

. at202. A m ong ot her i s s ues , t he s heernum berof fa ct ors t o cons i derm ayencour age p e rf u n c to ry a n a lysis b yd is tr ic t c o u rt s . I d. a t 1 7 2 . “ C o u rts appl y i ng [a mul t i fac t or ] t es t [] oft en re ci t e t he l i t anyand enga ge i n pr o for m a ana l y s es , butt hei rheart s ar e noti n i t
. ” I d. A l s o, t he feder al cour t s have y ett o pr ovi de a uni for m pr ocedur e for w ei ghi n g the var i ous fac t or s i m pl i cat ed i n a cl as s act i on se ttl e m e n t: L i ke al l fac t ort es t s , t he cons i der at ion s do not a l wa y s p o i n ti n t h e s a me d i r e c t i o n wi t h t h e s a me for ce ( i f theydid, t he courtcoul d s ave t i m e by l oo k ing a tonl yone)

. A w ei ght i ng i s r equi r ed. Shoul d t he court s as s i gn equal w eight s t o al l t he f a c to rs? T h e ite m s a re to o d iv e rse to m a k e th is p laus i bl e. B utw hi ch fa ct or s s houl d getm o re w e ig h t an d w h ich les s? T h e c o u rts o f a p p e a ls d o n ’ tp r o v i d e mu c h e n l i gh t e n me n t
. S o me o p in io n s ind ica te th a t th e m o st im p o rta n t f a c to r is t he val ue of the s et t l ementcom p are d w i t h w hat t h e c l a s s c o u l d e x p e c tf r o m c o n t i n u e d l i t i g a t i on. T h is maybe i nt erpr et ed as w ei ght i ng one cons i der at i on over ot her s , but i t l eave s open how m u ch w eigh t is d em an d ed an d h o w o ther f ac tors s houl d be as s es s ed. T hi s l ack of cl ar i t ym aybe t ypi cal of fa ct ort es t s buti ti s notan out come t hat l e n d s mu c h p r e d i c t a b i l i t yo rc e r t a i n t yt o t h e l a w. I d. at174. 22 I n s um , t her e w as s t i l l m uch for t he D i s t r i ct C our t t o do23 to c o n c lu d e th is li tig a tio n b yw a yo f se ttl e m e n t. T h u s, th is m a t t er w as not fi nal and t he C l ari fi cat i on A ctapp l i ed to b o th nam ed p l ai nti ffs’ com plai nts
. B. T he maj or i t ycl ai m s thatt he D i s t r i ctC our tcoul d nothave vaca t ed i t s or der of pre l i m i nary appr oval w i t houtl os i ng s i ghtof i t s t i gh t l y focu sed r ole as a fi du ci ary for t he abse n tee cl ass m em b ers. I n d ee d , itis w ell estab li sh ed that “ th e d istri ct co u rt act s as a fi duci aryw ho m us t s erve as a guar di an of the r i ght s of abs entcl as s m ember s [. ] ” I n re G M

T ruck , 55 F. 3d at785; A m chem P r ods

. , I

nc. v. W i nds or , 521 U
. S. 591, 623 ( 1997) (“R ule 23 (e )

. . . prot ect s unn am ed clas s m em bers fr om un j ust o r u n fai rs et t l ement s aff ect i ng t hei rr i ght s w hen the re p re se n tativ e s b e c o m e f a in th e a rte d b e f

o re th e a c tio n is adj udi cat ed or ar e abl e t o s ecur e s at i s fac t i on of thei ri ndi vi dual claim s b y a co m p rom ise. ”) ( interna l q u o tat ion m ark s o m itted); I n r e AT&T C or

p. Secs

. Li t ig. , 4 5 5 F
. 3 d 1 6 0 , 1 7 5 (3d C ir

. 2 0 0 6 ); I n r e C endant

C or p. Li t ig. , 264 F. 3d at 296. B utR ul e 23( e) and th e D istric t C o u rt’s c o rre sp o n d in g d u ties u n d e r th a t r u le a p p ly t o onl ypr opos ed s et t l ement s , vol unt arydi s m i s sal s , or c o m p ro m is e s . F e d . R . C iv . P . 2 3 (e ). T h e yd o n o t ap p lyto i nv olunt arydis m i ssal s, such as s ua s p o n te di s m i s s al for m oot nes s . I n A m chem P r oduct s , I nc. , t he Supr eme C our ts t at ed, al bei ti n di ct a, t hat“R ul e 23’ s r equi r ement s m us tbe i nt erpr et ed i n keepi ng w i t h A r t i cl e I I I cons t r ai nt s , and w i t h t he R ul es E nabl i ng A ct , w hi ch i ns t ruct s t hatrul es of pr ocedur e ‘ s hal l not a br i dg e , e nl a r ge ormodi fy a nys ub s t a nt i ve r i gh t [. ] ’ ” 52 1 U. S. at61 3 (quo t i ng 28 U
. S

. C

. § 2 07 2(b)) ; s ee F ed

. R
. C i v. P. 82 ( s t at i ng t hatt he F eder al R ul es of C i vi l Pr ocedur e “do notext end orl i m i tt he j ur i s di ct i on of the di s t r i ct cour t s ”)

. “[A ] cl as s act i onT he m aj or i t y , i n i t s at t empt s t o s us t ai n a l i ve “c as e or 11 contr over s y , ” ar gues t hatt he D i s t r i ctC o u rt coul d s t i l l gr ant eff ect i ve r el i ef t o t he pl ai nt i ffs by vi r tue of t he exi s t ence of the Set t l ementA gr eementa n d th e Di s t r i ctC our t ’ s abi l i t yt o appr ove t hat agre ementaft era fa i r nes s hear i ng. T hi s ar gum ent su c c in c tlyill u stra tes th e e rro rs o f th e m a jo rity ’s a p p ro a c h . R u le 23, l i ke al l t he Feder al R ul es of C ivi l Pr ocedur e, cannot
“ a br i dg e , e n l a r g e o rmo d i f ya n ys u b s t a n t i v e r i g h t
. ” 2 8 U. S

. C. § 2072( b)

. N o r ca n i t“ext end orl i m i tt he j ur i s di ct i on of the d istric t c o u rts[ .]” F e d . R . C iv . P . 8 2 . Y e t th e m a jo rityse e k s to use t he procedu res set fort h in R ule 23 t o acco m pli sh bo t h those th in g s . T he maj or i t y ’ s appr oach w oul d gr ant cl as s m ember s w ho do notoptoutof t he Set t l ementA gr eement“s ubs t ant i ve rig h t[ s]” th a t w o u ld b e d e n ied to c las s m e m b e rs w h o d o o p t o u t, in violati o n o f th e R u les E n ab li n g A ct. 2 8 U
. S

. C

. § 2 0 7 2 (b). U ndert he maj or i t y ’ s hol di ng, t he form ergr oup m ayr ecei ve r el i ef f ora non- exi s t enti nj ur ybecau se t he Set t l ement A gr eement and the pr ocedur es s etfor t h underR ul e 23 purpor t edl ypr ovi de fors uch a r es ul t
. C l as s m ember s w ho opt out , how ever , w oul d have no r i ghtt o r el i ef. I f an i ndi vi d ual w ho opt ed outof the Sett lem ent A gr eements oughtt o pr ocee d on herow n cl ai m , t hatcl ai m w oul d be di s m i s s ed bec aus e the C la ri f ic a tio n A c t e lim in a te d h e r c a u s e o f a c tio n . I n t he s ame vei n, t he m aj or i t y as s er t s t hat t hi s cas e i s not m o o tb e c a u s e t h e Di s t r i c tCou r tc o u l d h o l d a f a i r n e s s h ear i ng and gr ant r el i ef— t he appr oval of t he S ett le m ent A gr eement

— fort he cl as s m ember s . Poi nt i ng t o anyFeder al R ul e of C i vi l Pr ocedur e, i ncl udi ng R ul e 23, as t he s our ce of 24 i s a pr ocedur al devi ce. ” 1 N ew bur g on C l as s A ct i ons § 1 :2. I t “ca nnotconfe rs t andi ng t o s ue on a na m ed pl ai nt i ff w ho s eeks t o r epr es enta cl as s [. ] ” I d. 11A r t i c l e I I I j ur i s di c t i on i s c a t e go r i c a l l yba r r e d. Fe d. R. Ci v. P. 82
. R ule 23’s proced ures c a n n o t re s u s c ita te a m o o t c a s e . I d. 25 H er e, t he D i s t r i ctC our t , couchi ng i t s deci s i on i n t erm s of the “ f a ir , ad eq u ate, an d rea so n ab le” lan g u ag e o f R u le 23 (e), vaca t ed i t s or dergr ant i ng pr el i m i naryappr oval of the s et t l ement beca us e the s t atut or ybas i s fort he pl ai nt i ffs ’ cl ai m s h ad bee n el i m i nat ed. Instea d , i ts houl d have di s m i s s ed both named pl ai nt i ffs ’ compl ai nt s as m oots i nce thei ri nj ur i es w er e bas ed on t he el ectr oni c pr i nt i ng of car d expi r at i on dat es dur i ng t he per i od forw h ich the C l ar i fi cat i on A ctel i m i nat ed the corr es pondi ng s ta tu to ry in

ju ry, 1 5 U .S .C . § 1 6 8 1 n (d ). S e e A m c h e m P r o d s ., I nc. , 521 U
. S. at613. M oot nes s i s “the doctr i ne of s t andi ng s et i n a t i m e fr ame: T he r equi s i t e per s onal i n ter es tt hatm us texi s tatt he comm enc em entof l i t i gat i on ( s t andi ng) m us tcont i nue t hr oughouti t s exi s t ence ( m oot nes s )

. ” A r iz onans f orO f f i ci al E ngl is h v. A r iz ona , 520 U
. S. 43, 68 n. 22 ( 1997) ( i nt ernal q u o tatio n m a rk s o m itt e d ); Ar tway v . At t ’ y Gen

. o f th e S t a t e of N

. J. , 81 F. 3d 1235, 1 2 4 6 (3d C i r . 1996) ( “M oot nes s . . . as ks w h e th e r a p a rtyw h o h a s e sta b lish e d sta n d in g h a s n o w lo st it b ec au se th e f

ac ts of h er c ase h av e c h a n g e d o v er ti m e.”). T her efor e, w e l ook t o t he doctr i n e o f standi ng t o i nform our appl i cat i on of the moot nes s doctr ine. “I n i t s cons t i tut i onal di m ens i on, s t andi ng i m por t s j us t i ci abi l i t y : w hethert he pl ai nt i ff has m ade outa ‘ cas e orcontr over s y ’ betw een hi m s el f and the defe ndantw i t hi n t he m eani ng of A r t
. I I I
. ” W a rth v . Se ld in , 422 U
. S

. 4 9 0 , 4 9 8 (19 7 5 ). “T h is i s the thresh o ld q u esti o n in ev ery fede r al cas e, det erm i ni ng t he pow er of the courtt o ent er t ai n t he s ui t
. ” I d. “Li ke anyj ur i s di ct i onal r equi r ement , s t andi ng cannot be w ai ved. ” P ub. I

nt er es tR es ear ch G r oup of N

. J. , I nc. v.T h e S u p rem e C o u rtfro w n s u p o n a f ed era l cou rt 12

“ re so lv [ in g ] c o n tes ted q u e stio n s o f law w h e n its ju risd ictio n is in d o u b t.” S teel C o . v. C it izen s for a B ett er E n v’t , 523 U
. S. 83, 1 0 1 (1 9 9 8 ); s ee St or i no v. B or ough of P oi ntP l eas antB each , 322 F. 3d 293, 300 ( 3d C i r . 2003) ( expl ai ni ng t he i m por t ance of the s tand ing d o ctri n e).
26 Magnes i um E l ektr on, I

nc. , 1 2 3 F
. 3 d 1 1 1 , 1 1 7 n . 5 (3d C ir

. 1 9 9 7 ). I n gener al , a pl ai nt i ff “must have s t andi ng at al l s t ages o f the l i t i gat i on[. ] ” I

d. at117. “[F] eder al app ell ate c our t s have a bedr ock obl i gat i on t o ex am i ne both t hei row n s ubj ectm at t er j ur i s di ct i on and t hat of the di s t r i ctcour t s . ” I d. Th e S u p r e me 12 C our thas expl ai ned that“the i r r educi bl e cons t i tut i onal m i ni m um of s t andi ng cont ai ns t hr ee e l ement s ”: F irst, th e p lain tiff m u st h a v e su f f e re d a n “ in

ju ryin fact ” -- an i nv asi on of a legal l yprot ect ed int eres t w hi ch i s ( a) concr et e and pa r t icul ar i zed, and ( b) “ac tual ori m m i nent , not‘ conj ectur al ’ or
‘ hypot het i cal [. ] ’ ” Second, t her e m us t be a c aus al connec t i on betw een the i n juryand the conduc t c o m p la in e d o f

-- th e in ju ry h a s to b e “ f

a i rl y. . . t r ace [abl e] to the cha l l enged a ct i on of the defe ndant , and not

. . . t he r es ul t[of] t he ind ep en d en t ac ti o n o f so m e thir d p artyn o t bef o re t he court
. ” Thi r d, i tm us t be “l i kel y , ” as oppos ed t o m er el y“s pecul at i ve, ” that t he i nj ur yw i l l be

“ re d re s s e d b ya f

a v o ra b le d e c is io n .” L u ja n v . D e

fen d e rs o

f W ild lif e , 504 U
. S

. 5 5 5 , 560- 61 ( 1992) ( i nt ernal footnot e and c i t at i ons om i t t ed)

. T hes e el ement s ar e an27 “an i ndi s pens abl e partof [a ] p lai n ti ff’ s cas e[. ] ” I d. at 56 1
. In a cl ass act i on , “nam ed p l ai nti f f s w ho repr esenta cl ass ‘ m ust al l ege a nd s how t hat t hey per s onal l y have been i nj ur ed, nott hat i nj ur yhas been suf

fer ed by ot her , uni dent i fi ed mem ber s of the c las s to w h ich th e yb e lo n g a n d w h ich th e yp u rp o rt to r epr es ent
. ’ ” Si m on v. E

. K y. W el f ar e Right s O r g. , 426 U
. S. 26, 40 n. 20 ( 1 9 76) ( quot i ng W a rth , 422 U
. S. at502)

. “A bs ent A r t i cl e I I I s t andi ng, a fe der al cour t does not have s ubj ectm at t er j ur i s di ct i on t o addr es s a pl ai nt i ff’ s cl ai m s , and t h ey m us tbe di s m i s s ed. ” B e r

gv . Ob a ma , 586 F. 3d 234, 242 ( 3d C i r . 2009) (i nternal quotat i on m arks om i t t ed). “[W ]e are requi red t o rai se i s s ues of s t andi ng su a sp o n te i f s uch i s s ues exi s t
. ” A ddi ct i on Speci al is t

s , I nc v. Tw p. of H am pt on , 4 1 1 F
. 3 d 3 9 9 , 4 0 5 (3d C ir

. 2 0 0 5 ) ( in te rn a l q u o ta tio n m a rk s o m itte d ).
H er e, an i s s ue of m oot nes s i s pr es ent ed. Pr i ort o t he fi nal appr oval of the s et t l ement , C ongr es s el i m i nat ed the named p la in tif f s ’ i n ju ry-in -f a c t, s ee Pub. L
. N o. 110- 241, t he pr i nt i ng o f th e e x p ira tio n d a te o f th e ir d e b it ca r d s . B yd o in g so , it el i m i nat ed the D i s t r i ctC our t ’ s j ur i s di ct i on overE hr heart ’ s and G ar l and’ s cas es. E h rhea r t ’ s compl ai ntdoes notal l ege a ny per s onal i nj ur ybes i des t he pr i nt i ng of the expi r at i on dat e of he r cre d ito r de b itca rd o n a re ce ipt o n J u n e 7 , 2 0 0 7
. H er injury s t emm ed s ol el yfr om 15 U
. S. C

. § 1681c( g) , a s t atut e “c r eat i ng l egal r i ght s , t he i nvas i on of w hi ch cr eat e[d] s t andi ng[. ] ” W a rth , 422 U
. S. at500 ( i nt ernal quot at i on m arks om i t te d)

. O nce he r in ju ry

— th e in v a sio n o f

h e r rig h t n o t to h a v e th e e x p ira tio n d a te of hercr edi tordebi t ca rd p ri n t ed on a r ece i pt

— w as deemed a non- i nj ury b yC ongr es s , hers t andi ng t o s eek r el i ef i n fede r al c o u rt w a s e lim in a te d a n d h e r c a s e w a s re n d e re d m o o t. S e e i d. A s such, t he D i stri ctC ou rtcou l d n ot have h el d a fa i rness hear i ng, i s s ued fi nal appr oval of t he s et t l ement , orent er ed fi nal28 jud g m en t i n E h rhe art’s case w ith o u t violati n g A rt icle III. Ir o n ica ll y , i ti s the D i stri ctC ou rt ’s supervi soryrol e as a fi duci aryfort he abs entcl as s m ember s

— a r ol e the maj or i t yand Eh r h e a r tt ru mp e ti n t h e i rr e a s o n i n g

— t h a td o oms h e rc l a i m. W i t ho u t th e D i stri ctC ou rt ’s fi nal approval aft er a fai rness hear i ng, and the entr yof fi nal j udgm ent , t he s et t l ementw as not compl et e. T he D i str ict C our tl os tj ur i s di ct i on t o i s s ue fi nal appr oval orent erfi nal j udgm entw hen E hr heart ’ s cas e w as re n d e re d m o o t. G a rla n d ’s a c tio n sh o u ld lik e w ise b e d ism iss e d a s m o o t. A l t hough hi s compl ai nt ’ s am bi guous al l egat i on t hatV er i zon i njur ed h i m by“pri nt[i ng ] m ore than t he five digi ts of [his ] cr edi t
. . . ordebi t car d num ber and/ or pr i nt [i ng] t he expi r at i on dat e of [ hi s ] cr edi tordebi tcar d, ” l eave s open t he pos s i bi l i t yt hat h e h a s a c o g n iza b le in

ju ry -in -f a c t b a se d o n th e p rin tin g o f h is ac co u n t n u m b er, ev ery thing in this l it igation p o ints t o h is i n jury a s b e in g b a se d so lelyo n th e p rin tin g o f th e e x p ira tio n d a te o f

h is cr edi tordeb it car d. I ndeed, t he D i s t r i ctC our t , i n i t s opi ni on and or d er gr ant i ng V er i zon’ s m ot i on forj udgm enton t he p le adi ngs , concl uded that“[a ] l t hough G ar l and al l ege[ d] i n t he a ltern a tiv e th a t [ V e riz o n ] p rin ted m o re th a n th e las t f iv e d ig its of hi s cr edi t/debi tcar d on hi s r ec ei pt
. . . the ac tual r ece i pt w h ich G ar l and att ache d t o hi s C om pl ai ntr evea l [ed] onl yt he pr i nt i ng of hi s expi r at i on dat e, and nott he pr i nt i ng of m or e than th e las t f iv e d ig its o f

h is c re d it /d e b it ca rd .” It re a c h e d th is co n clus i on bas ed on V er i zon’ s undi s put ed expl anat i on of G ar l and’ s i nj ur yi n i t s m emora ndum i n s uppor tof i t s m ot i on for j u d g me n to n t h e p l e a d i n g s . M o r e o v e r , Ga r l a n d ’ s o wn ar gum ent s t hr oughoutt hi s l i t i gat i on have a s s um ed thathe has no c laim d u e to th e C lar if ic a ti o n A c t. F o r e x a m p le, h is m emora ndum i n oppos i t i on t o V er i zon’ s m ot i on t o vaca t e the29 D i s t r i ctC our t ’ s pr el i m i naryapprov al of the s et t l ement agr eementbegan byas s um i ng t hathi s cl ai m w as el i m i nat ed by th e C lar if

ica tio n A c t. Itth e n a rg u e d th a t d e sp ite th is s hor t comi ng G ar l and w as ent i t l ed t o t he frui t s of the Set t l ement A gr eement
. H i s ar gum ent s i n t hi s appea l ar e a c ont i nuat i on of t hatunt enabl e ar gum ent
. D es pi t e cha l l engi ng t he or dergr ant i ng V e riz o n ’s m o tio n f

o r ju d g m e n t o n th e p lea d in g s in th is a p p e a l, G ar l and does notchal l enge the D i s t r i ctC ourt ’s conc l us i on r e g a r d i n g h i s i n

j u r y. B eca us e the A rt i cl e I I I s t andi ng r equi r ement s ar e “not m er e pl eadi ng r equi r ement s butr ather an i ndi s pens abl e par tof t h e p l a i n t i f

f ’ s c a s e , e a c h e l e me n t mu s t b e s u p p o r t e d i n t h e s a me w ayas anyot herm at t eron w hi ch t he pl ai nt i ff bear s t he bur den o f p ro o f , i

. e. , w i t h t he mannerand degr ee of evi dence r equi r ed a t t h e s u c c e s s i v e s t a g e s o f t h e l i t i g a t i o n. ” L u jan , 504 U
. S. at 5 6 1
. “A t the plea d ing stag e, ge n era l fac tual all eg ati o n s o f in jury r es ul t i ng fr om t he def

endant ’ s conductm ays uffi ce, ” i d. , b u t in li g h t of the re ce ipt a tt ac h ed to G arlan d ’s c o m p lai n t, h is fail u re t o r e f u t e th e a s s e r t i o n t h a t h i s o n l y i n j u r y s t e mme d f

r o m t he p rin tin g o f h is cre d it o r de b it c a rd ’s e x p ira tio n d a te , h is l i t i gat i on s t r at egy , and t he D i s t r i ct C our t ’ s entr y of j udgm enton t he pl eadi ngs i n fa v o r o f V er i zon, I vi ew hi s i nj ur y - i n- fac tas b e in g li m it ed to the p ri n ti n g o f h is cred ito r de b itca rd’s expi r at i on dat e. T her efor e, I concl ude thatG ar l and’ s cl ai m , l i ke E hr heart ’ s cl ai m , w as r ender ed moot aft ert he pas s age of t he C lar if ica tio n A c t. I V. A lth o u g h th e D istric t C o u rt e rre d b yc a b in in g its a n a ly sis to th e ter m s o f R u le 2 3 (e ), it s u lti m a te o u tco m e a n d m u c h o f its30 under l y i ng r eas oni ng w as corr ect
. I w oul d vaca t e the j udgm ent o n th e p lea d in g s in f

a v o r o f V e riz o n a n d re m a n d th is c a se w ith i ns t ruct i ons forthe D i s t r i ctC our tt o di s m i s s bot h named p lain ti f f s’ c o m p lain ts a s m o o t. B e c a u se th e m a jo rityp e rm its t hi s m at t ert o pr ocee d, des pi t e the l ack of a l i ve “c as e or c o n tro v e rsy” a s re q u ire d u n d e r A rticle III, I re sp e c tf u llyd iss e n t.