Federal Courts, Class Actions, and the Jurisdictional Void

Authors

Courtney T. Welch, Fordham University School of Law

Keywords

American Pipe; amendment; Article III; China Agritech; civil procedure; class actions; class certification; class representative; complex litigation; constitutional standing; continuation; federal courts; Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 15; Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23; Federal Rules of Civil Procedure; Friends of the Earth; intervention; jurisdiction; jurisdictional void; justiciability; litigation; mootness; nullity doctrine; personal stake; prudential standing; PSLRA; putative class action; securities class action; Sosna; standing; statute of limitations; subject matter jurisdiction; substitution; tolling

Abstract

To invoke the jurisdiction of a federal court, a plaintiff must satisfy the requirements of Article III. Among other things, Article III requires a plaintiff to have and maintain personal stake throughout the lifespan of the litigation. Though a simple premise, this constitutional requirement has a complicated history. This is especially true as applied to class action lawsuits, where plaintiffs bring claims both on behalf of themselves and other harmed individuals.

The U.S. Supreme Court has applied flexible rules to some—but not all—of Article III’s requirements in class actions. The breadth of this flexibility, though, is uncertain. Accordingly, so too is the scope of federal judicial power upon a putative class representative’s loss of personal stake. Put differently, does Article III instruct courts to dismiss a class action entirely the moment the claims of the individual fall? Or, instead, does Article III allow courts to continue to hear the class claims despite the fall of the individual?

Federal courts proceed under both instructions, caught in a balancing act of weighing their limited jurisdictional power under Article III, the prudential underpinnings of the class action mechanism, and the practical impact of the statute of limitations. This Note argues that courts need not, however, compromise the goals of one in pursuit of the other. As this Note explains, a putative class representative’s loss of personal stake does not suck federal courts into a jurisdictional void where all that awaits the claims before them is dismissal. Rather, consistent with the Supreme Court’s flexibility as to the mootness doctrine in class action lawsuits, this Note explains federal courts have jurisdiction to allow class claims to continue by substitution of the putative class representative. This Note therefore recommends federal courts adopt a framework under which to allow the continuation of class claims despite the precertification fall of the individual representative.

Recommended Citation

Courtney T. Welch, Federal Courts, Class Actions, and the Jurisdictional Void, 94 Fordham L. Rev. 1215 (2025).
Available at: https://ir.lawnet.fordham.edu/flr/vol94/iss3/9