Highlights
- Federal Magistrate Judge
Jonathan Goodman of theU.S. District Court for the Southern District of Florida recommended that a motion for class certification be denied for lack of standing when the named plaintiffs could show only a technical, procedural violation of COBRA's notice requirements and failed to demonstrate any concrete or particularized injury. - The Report and Recommendation also concluded that even if the named plaintiffs had shown the requisite injury, they failed to demonstrate that any such injury was related to the deficient COBRA notice.
- In addition, although the named plaintiffs satisfied the adequacy requirement for class certification, they failed to satisfy the typicality requirements and also could not overcome the lack of standing.
- The plaintiffs voluntarily dismissed the case, with prejudice, after the magistrate judge's ruling.
In Bryant v.
Issue of Standing
Earlier in the case, the district judge had addressed the issue of standing in denying Walmart's motion to dismiss, finding that the complaint's allegations, taken as true at the pleading stage, sufficiently alleged standing. However, for purposes of class certification, the court stated that it is required to address evidence and facts established in the record to determine if the plaintiffs demonstrate irreducible constitutional requirement of standing, which requires: 1) a concrete and particularized injury-in-fact, 2) that is fairly traceable to the defendant's conduct and 3) that can be redressed by a favorable court decision. Of primary importance is the first element: if a plaintiff cannot show it has suffered actual harm, the plaintiff has no standing.
Considering Class Certification
In considering the plaintiffs' motion for class certification, the Magistrate Judge analyzed each plaintiff's standing. The first named plaintiff,
The next named plaintiff,
For Bryant, the court found that the evidence did not support her allegations of injury, as she faced no lapse in coverage (and knew she would face no lapse in coverage), was paying much lower premiums than she would have paid under COBRA (even if more than she had previously paid under her prior employer's benefit plan), and had produced no evidence of delayed medical care or unpaid medical expenses as a result of the alleged deficiencies in the COBRA election notice. Thus, the court found that she did not suffer injury sufficient to demonstrate standing. Similarly, the court determined that Smith and Baker also failed to demonstrate standing as both Smith and Baker stated they knew they would not elect COBRA coverage due to its cost, and both admitted that they never read the allegedly deficient COBRA election notice. Thus, the court determined that any injuries the plaintiff allegedly suffered did not flow from the alleged deficiencies in the COBRA election notice.
Addressing "Information Injury" Theory
In addition to actual harm, the plaintiffs in this case, as in other COBRA actions recently filed in the federal courts, attempted to satisfy the requirements of standing by asserting that they suffered an "information injury." The court briefly addressed a theory of informational standing. Under this theory, plaintiffs allege they suffered an injury sufficient to confer them with standing to bring suit under COBRA because, according to plaintiffs, COBRA created a right to receive certain information and the fact that such information was not provided in a matter that strictly complied with the relevant DOL regulations, plaintiffs suffered an information injury. The court rejected this argument, explaining that even assuming the COBRA election form violated a federal regulation, this alone did not generate Article III standing. The court explained that a plaintiff does not automatically satisfy the injury-in-fact requirement simply because a statute grants him or her the right to receive information. Instead, Article III standing requires a concrete injury even in the context of a statutory violation. Thus, the court reiterated holdings from the
Report and Recommendation
Because the three named plaintiffs lacked standing, Federal Magistrate Judge
Conclusion
Following the magistrate judge's recommendation and report, plaintiffs dismissed their claims with prejudice. As a result, the magistrate judge's report stands unchallenged.
Originally published by
The content of this article is intended to provide a general guide to the subject matter. Specialist advice should be sought about your specific circumstances.
Mr
11th Floor
MA 02116
Tel: 6175232700
Fax: 6175236850
E-mail: Kristin.vasilj@hklaw.com
URL: www.hklaw.com
© Mondaq Ltd, 2020 - Tel. +44 (0)20 8544 8300 - http://www.mondaq.com, source