Opinion ID: 3062245
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: Class Standing

Text: Before we apply Rule 23, we must address Abercrombie’s repeated contention that no one, not even the class, has standing in this case. Specifically, Abercrombie argues that the class lacks standing because the Plaintiffs “never 15 established that there are actual, non-hypothetical class members who intend to patronize each of the Hollister stores.” Aplt. Br. 29. That is, the Plaintiffs must offer proof of “actual members of the certified class who have standing” as to the 231 Hollister stores with a porch. Id. at 30. We have heard this argument before. In DG ex rel. Stricklin v. Devaughn, the defendants argued that “Rule 23(a)’s commonality and typicality requirements demanded that Named Plaintiffs prove all members were [injured] or are actually exposed to an imminent threat of harm as a result of” the defendants’ actions. 594 F.3d at 1197. We rejected this argument, noting that it “conflate[d] the requirements for standing, prospective injunctive relief, and class certification.” Id. “First,” we held, “only named plaintiffs in a class action seeking prospective injunctive relief must demonstrate standing by establishing they are suffering a continuing injury or are under an imminent threat of being injured in the future.” Id. “Second, Rule 23’s certification requirements neither require all class members to suffer harm or threat of immediate harm nor Named Plaintiffs to prove class members have suffered such harm.” Id. at 1198. Other authorities support the notion that class “standing” does not require individualized proof from class members. See Denney v. Deutsche Bank AG, 443 F.3d 253, 263 (2d Cir. 2006) (noting that Article III standing does “not require that each member of a class submit evidence of personal standing”); PradoSteiman ex rel. Prado v. Bush, 221 F.3d 1266, 1279-80 (11th Cir. 2000) (Court 16 must first determine whether “at least one named class representative has Article III standing,” then “question whether the named plaintiffs have representative capacity, as defined by Rule 23(a), to assert the rights of others.”). Three Justices of the Supreme Court favorably quoted this principle from a leading class action treatise: “[Unnamed plaintiffs] need not make any individual showing of standing [in order to obtain relief] . . . . Whether or not the named plaintiff who meets individual standing requirements may assert the rights of absent class members is neither a standing issue nor an Article III case or controversy issue but depends rather on meeting the prerequisites of Rule 23 governing class actions.” Lewis v. Casey, 518 U.S. 343, 395-96 (1996) (Souter, J., concurring) (alterations in original) (ellipses added) (quoting 1 H. Newberg & A. Conte, Newberg on Class Actions § 2.07, pp. 2-40 to 2-41 (3d ed. 1992)). The majority seemed to agree, pointing out that its holding did “not rest upon the application of standing rules.” See id. at 360 n.7. 5 5 Abercrombie’s position could be framed as an argument that nationwide injunctive relief was inappropriate because there was no proof of nationwide injuries necessitating such relief. See Lewis, 518 U.S. at 348-49. In this case, however, we are faced with a nationwide design—“231 Hollister stores that have one elevated entry door with steps in addition to two adjacent, level, fully accessible entry doors.” Aplt. Br. 3. An injunction aimed at those and only those Hollister stores fits perfectly with the claim that those stores violate class members’ rights under the ADA. Contra Lewis, 518 U.S. at 360 (absent showing of systemwide constitutional violation, injunction with systemwide scope was inappropriate). 17 Thus, the question whether this class may seek nationwide injunctive relief is not answered by demanding proof of standing from each class member but by application of Rule 23.