PRACTITIONER BLOG
Read our analyses of developments in Impact Litigation and stay current on class action law
Ninth Circuit Finds That Discrimination Is A Concrete Injury For Purposes Of Article III Standing
The last few years have brought more and more standing-based challenges to our clients’ ability to have their day in court, with some success – look no further than TransUnion v. Ramirez, for example. Fortunately, the Ninth Circuit just rejected an attempt to insulate a bank from liability for admitted citizenship discrimination on standing grounds. Chattopadhyay v. BBVA is a class action alleging that BBVA (Banco Bilbao Vizcaya Argentaria) discriminates on the basis of citizenship status in violation of 42 U.S.C. 1981 and California’s Unruh Civil Rights Act.
Ninth Circuit Rules on Article III Class Action Standing in Favor of Plaintiffs in Ramirez v. TransUnion
Given the issues, I expect the defendant will be filing en banc and cert petitions. While the buzz on the case is on punitive damages, I think the Article III standing issues will be the heart of future disputes. The first piece of good news is that the facts in the case are very sympathetic for the plaintiffs, which will be helpful going forward. In brief, TransUnion incorrectly placed terrorist alerts on the front page of consumer credit reports for approximately 8000 individuals.
Impact Fund Files Amicus On Behalf Of Military's Diabetic Kids
Standing is like a light switch; a plaintiff has either alleged an identifiable injury or not. The concept of Article III standing is used by the courts to distinguish between a dispute that is properly before the court, rather than an abstract interest intended to be addressed by the legislature. Given this, the Supreme Court and the Ninth Circuit have consistently held that a minimal injury is sufficient to confer standing and have never weighed one’s injury relative to their resources.