New York Attorneys JHA handles range the gamut of complex financial and commercial litigation and arbitration, including securities, RICO, corporate and contract disputes, credit default swaps, derivatives, and class, mass, and derivative actions. The firm also represents law firms in major disputes.

Commercial Litigation and Arbitration

New York Attorneys JHA handles range the gamut of complex financial and commercial litigation and arbitration, including securities, RICO, corporate and contract disputes, credit default swaps, derivatives, and class, mass, and derivative actions. The firm also represents law firms in major disputes.
Commercial Litigation and Arbitration
« Back to Complex Lit Blog

Juridical Link Doctrine as Basis for Standing in Class Actions — Circuit Split

Download PDF

Reyes v. Julia Place Condominiums Homeowners Ass’n, 2013 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 15356 (E.D. La. Feb. 5, 2013):

Plaintiff asserts that the Juridical Link Doctrine gives her standing to bring claims on behalf of the class against defendants from whom she has not sustained a direct injury.... The doctrine is premised on the idea that the class, not the class representative, is the legal entity for the purposes of Article III standing. Tex. Med. Providers Performing Abortion Servs. v. Lakey, 806 F. Supp. 2d 942, 953-54 (W.D. Tex. 2011). There is a Circuit split on whether the Juridical Link Doctrine gives a class representative standing to bring claims against defendants that did not cause her actual injury, and the Fifth Circuit has not made its own determination. In Mahon v. Ticor Title Insurance Co., the Second Circuit held that the doctrine did not apply because the defendant's alleged unlawful conducts must have caused injury to the plaintiff herself in order for there to be Article III standing. 683 F.3d 59, 62. However, in La Mar v. H & B Novelty & Loan Co., the Ninth Circuit held that the Juridical Link Doctrine applies to allow a group of plaintiffs-named and unnamed-to have standing to bring a claim against defendants when they have suffered an identical injury that is related by conspiracy, concerted scheme or otherwise "juridically related in a manner that suggests a single resolution of the dispute would be expeditious." 489 F.2d 461, 466 (1973). See also Moore v. Comfed Sav. Bank, 908 F.2d 834, 838-839 (11th Cir. 1990) (adopting Juridical Link Doctrine when all the transactions arose from a common source and all involved the same question of law and fact); Payton, 308 F.3d at 679 (upholding the Juridical Link Doctrine in the Seventh Circuit); Fallick v. Nationwide Mut. Ins. Co, 162 F.3d 410, 423-24 (6th Cir. 1998) (adopting the Juridical Link Doctrine for Article III standing because all defendants committed the conduct being challenged).

The Fifth Circuit has only addressed the Juridical Link Doctrine in Audler where it found that it was inapplicable for the reason stated above, but did not strike it down, or affirm it. 519 F.3d at 248. This Court, as other district courts have, finds that the Juridical Link Doctrine may be applicable after Rule 23 certification. Lakey, 806 F. Supp. 2d at 953-54; Mayo v. Hartford Life Ins. Co., 214 F.R.D. 465, 2002 U.S. dist. LEXIS 15990 (S.D. Tex. 2002). Ms. Reyes has alleged that the defendant condominium associations have engaged in a scheme or otherwise conspired with Steeg and Glass to set their respective Condominium Declarations to charge usurious interest upon its members in violation of the Louisiana Condominium Act and Louisiana usury laws and for Steeg and Glass to send form collection letters on behalf of Rotunda and the other named condominium associations which violate the FDCPA, LUTPA and Louisiana usury laws. Rec. doc. 127, p. 17. The factual allegations must be taken as true in this 12(b)(1) motion, and the Juridical Link Doctrine is applicable to the alleged scheme or conspiracy.

Share this article:

Facebook
Twitter
LinkedIn
Email

Recent Posts

(1) Electronic Spoliation — Rule 37(e)(2) Dismissal Sanction — Temporal Proximity of Spoliation to Production Due Date = Circumstantial Evidence of Intent; (2) While Discovery Sanctions Are Reviewed For Abuse Of Discretion, Findings Of Fact Related To Discovery Sanctions Are Reviewed For Clear Error; (3) Dismissal under Rule 37(e)(2) Plus Attorney’s Fees under Inherent Power Appropriately Combined [But see 2015 Advisory Committee Note: “New Rule 37(e) … authorizes and specifies measures a court may employ if information that should have been preserved is lost, and specifies the findings necessary to justify these measures. forecloses reliance on inherent authority or state law to determine when certain measures should be used.”]; (4) Compensatory Sanctions under Goodyear v. Haeger Appropriately Include Fees and Costs Resulting from Attempts to Settle Spoliation Motion

(1) FRAP 38 Sanctions Inapt for Appeal That Is Weak — “Borderline Frivolous” — Test Is Whether Appellant Should Have Known the Appeal Had Absolutely No Chance of Success — (2) Lay Opinion Testimony under Rule 701: Nub of Helpfulness Requirement Is to Exclude Testimony When the Witness Is No Better Suited Than the Jury to Assess the Issue; (3) Appeals: No Appeal from Denial of Motion for Judgment As a Matter of Law Unless Appellant Made That Motion Before Case Was Submitted to Jury

(1) § 1927 and Inherent Power Sanctions — Extrajudicial Misconduct After Obtaining Verdict: Filing Lis Pendens Based on False Statements and in Violation of Governing Law, Filing Fraudulent Abstracts of Judgment That Represented They Had Been Court-Issued; (2) Rule 37 Sanctions for Baseless Motion to Compel Required Unless Target Shows That the Motion Was Substantially Justified Or Other Circumstances Make An Award Of Expenses Unjust

Rule 37 Dismissal Factors (10th Circuit) — Rule 37(d) Sanctions Apply Without Regard to Whether the Court Has Ordered the Delinquent Party to Appear for His, Her or Their Deposition

Rule 37 Dismissal Factors (Sixth Circuit) — Refusal to Answer Deposition Questions on Relevancy Grounds Is Not Valid Rule 30(c)(2) — Pro Se Deponent’s Attendance At Zoom Deposition While Driving A Semi, Refusing to Answer Questions, Inter Alia, Held Contumacious

Rule 26(a)(1) Disclosures and Rule 37 Preclusion: Rule 26 Does Not Require Disclosure of Legal Theories Underlying Damages Computations Provided Pursuant to 26(a)(1)(A)(i)

Rule 37 Sanctions: (1) Forfeiture of Objections to Produce Specific Categories of Documents (Including Tax Returns, Social Media Passwords) as Sanction for Violation of Discovery Order — (2) Default Judgment for Multiple Violations of Discovery Orders — (3) Ninth Circuit’s 5-Factor Test for Dismissal or Default Sanction — (4) Three Additional Factors Considered by Court of Appeals in Assessing Whether Lesser Sanctions Were Adequately Considered — (5) District Court Need Not Recite Each Factor: It Suffices If Record Permits Appellate Court to Apply Them — (6) Public Policy Favoring Disposition of Cases on the Merits Is Not Dispositive Where At Least 4 Factors “Support,” Or 3 Factors “Strongly Support,” Dismissal/Default — (7) And Lends Little Support to A Party Whose Conduct Impedes Adjudication on the Merits — (7) Order to Show Cause Why FRAP 38, § 1927 and Inherent Power Sanctions Should Not Issue for Multiple Misstatements Of Counsel At Oral Argument

Electronic Spoliation Sanctions: “Intent to Deprive” in Rule 37(e)(2) Means Willful Destruction of Evidence to Avoid Its Discovery by an Adverse Party — Relevant Circumstantial Evidence in Determining “Intent to Deprive” — Rule 37(e)(2)(C)’s Standards Trump Circuit’s Multi-Factor Test for Determining Whether Dismissal Is Appropriate — No Prejudice Required for 37(e)(2) Sanctions Because Intent to Deprive Creates Inference the Loss of Information Favored the Spoliator

Sanctions and Appealability — Fifth Circuit’s 2023 Survey of Circuit Cases Concerning Whether Judgment of Dismissal As a Sanction Bars Review of Earlier Sanctions Orders Due to Lack of Jurisdiction or Whether The Decision to Review Pre-Dismissal Sanctions Orders Is Prudential

Sanctions and Appealability — Prior Sanctions Orders Do Not Merge into Judgment of Dismissal Imposed As Sanction under Rules 16(f), 37(b) and 41(b) and Are Unappealable — Courts of Appeal Differ As to Whether This Lack of Reviewability Is Jurisdictional or Discretionary (Jurisdictional in Second Circuit)

Archives
New York Attorneys JHA handles range the gamut of complex financial and commercial litigation and arbitration, including securities, RICO, corporate and contract disputes, credit default swaps, derivatives, and class, mass, and derivative actions. The firm also represents law firms in major disputes.
New York Attorneys JHA handles range the gamut of complex financial and commercial litigation and arbitration, including securities, RICO, corporate and contract disputes, credit default swaps, derivatives, and class, mass, and derivative actions. The firm also represents law firms in major disputes.

New York Office

© 2024 Joseph Hage Aaronson LLC  
Disclaimer | Attorney Advertising Notice | Legal Notice