Potter Stewart Courthouse
The Potter Stewart U.S. Courthouse in Cincinnati

Article III of the federal constitution limits federal-court jurisdiction to “cases [and] controversies,” and there can’t be a case or controversy without concrete harm. A plaintiff must have standing. The Sixth Circuit recently issued an opinion reminding us that Plaintiffs who bring class-action claims under Rule 23 must show their own standing—even if the absent class members would have concrete injury.

The case was about gas-station credit holds. When you buy gas at a gas station you usually have to swipe your credit card before you can get any gas from the pump. When you swipe your card the gas station puts a temporary hold on your card that freezes a set amount of credit as payable to the gas station. After you pump your gas the station posts the actual amount to charge and releases the temporary hold.

A group of gas-station customers filed class-action suits against the gas stations, alleging that the stations had unlawfully held too much credit frozen for too long after selling gas. The trial court found that the customers lacked standing and dismissed the case. The Sixth Circuit affirmed.

The Sixth Circuit began by rehearsing the well-known basics of standing, including “concrete” injury and reviewing the Plaintiffs’ allegations. The Plaintiffs had alleged that the large holds had temporarily denied them access to the frozen credit. But “[n]owhere in Plaintiffs’ pleadings or briefs do Plaintiffs articulate what is ‘real’ about the harm arising from Defendants’ temporary preauthorization holds.”

The named Plaintiffs practically conceded they suffered no concrete harm, while arguing that “it is likely – and even probable – that the loss of credit occasioned by such holds has indeed resulted in [concrete] deprivations for other unnamed Class members.” But a named class member can’t rely on an absent class member’s injury to get standing. The Sixth Circuit concluded that “[t]he district court was therefore correct to dismiss Plaintiffs’ actions for want of standing.”

Read the Sixth Circuit’s opinion here.

Leave a comment