Summary
The United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit issued an order denying the appellants' petition for rehearing en banc in Lewis v. Becerra. In a concurring opinion, Judge Pillard criticized the panel's majority reasoning regarding appellate jurisdiction over a denied class certification after the named plaintiff's claims became moot. She argued that Supreme Court precedent, particularly U.S. Parole Comm'n v. Geraghty, directly controls the mootness and standing analysis, emphasizing that a putative class retains independent legal status even if the named representative's individual claim expires. Despite her reservations about the panel's jurisdictional approach, she concurred in the denial due to the limited precedential impact of the underlying decision.
Topics
Practice areas
Questions Presented
- Whether the appellate court has jurisdiction to review a denied class certification when the named plaintiff’s claim has become moot
- Whether Geraghty v. U.S. Parole Comm’n controls the jurisdictional analysis in this case
Key quotations
“We know, because the Supreme Court has told us, that when a class representative’s claims expire involuntarily, the class representative still ‘retains a “personal stake” in obtaining class certification sufficient’ to appeal a denial of class certification entered before the representative’s claims expired.” (at 13)
Factual background
The appellants, Carol Lewis and Douglas Sargent, sued to obtain class certification under the Medicare Act. The district court denied class certification, and the appellants appealed. While the appeal was pending, the named plaintiffs' individual claims became moot, raising the question of whether the appellate court retained jurisdiction to review the denial.
Procedural history
Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Columbia (No. 1:18-cv-02929); panel issued opinion; petition for rehearing en banc was denied.