Claude
ChatGPT
PerplexityDaubert v. Merrell Dow Pharmaceuticals
The reliability gatekeeping standard for expert testimony.
Practice Area Spotlight
Class Actions & Mass Torts
Class action and mass tort litigators use Midpage to research certification and standing fights, CAFA removal, MDL practice, expert challenges, and preemption defenses. The statutes, rules, and case law behind that work are collected below.
How Class Action Lawyers Use Midpage
Browse to see how Midpage works through class action questions from real lawyers.
Predominance in Product-Defect ClassesSummarize the Sixth Circuit’s en banc decision in Speerly v. General Motors and collect decisions applying its commonality and predominance analysis.Personal Jurisdiction in Mass ActionsHow have courts applied Bristol-Myers Squibb to absent class members, FLSA collectives, and mass arbitration? Collect the circuit answers.Damages Models Under ComcastFind decisions excluding or crediting classwide damages models at certification, including conjoint analysis in consumer cases.General Causation & Daubert in MDLsSummarize the expert-admissibility rulings on general causation in recent MDLs (talc, Roundup, Camp Lejeune), applying amended Rule 702.American Pipe Tolling LimitsDraft an argument that successive class actions are time-barred under China Agritech, addressing state-law analogues.Medical Monitoring Without Present InjuryWhich states recognize medical-monitoring claims absent present physical injury? Collect the state supreme court decisions each way.
Core Class Action Collections
The statutes, rules, agency materials, and courts behind class action and mass tort litigation.
Statutes
The jurisdictional framework of CAFA and the MDL statute, plus the federal consumer, privacy, and mass-tort statutes that generate the highest class-action volume.
| CAFA — Class action jurisdiction $5 million aggregate, minimal diversity, and the local-controversy exceptions | 28 U.S.C. § 1332(d) |
| CAFA — Removal of class actions No one-year limit, no forum-defendant bar, discretionary appellate review | 28 U.S.C. § 1453 |
| CAFA — Class-member protections Chapter 114 — coupon-settlement limits, protections against member loss, and notice to federal and state officials | 28 U.S.C. §§ 1711–1715 |
| MDL statute Transfer and coordination of pretrial proceedings by the JPML | 28 U.S.C. § 1407 |
Rules & Regulations
Rule 23 and the procedural machinery of aggregate litigation — including the new MDL rule and the amended expert-testimony standard.
| Rule 23(a) — Prerequisites Numerosity, commonality, typicality, and adequacy | Fed. R. Civ. P. 23(a) |
| Rule 23(b) — Class types (b)(2) injunctive classes; (b)(3) predominance and superiority | Fed. R. Civ. P. 23(b) |
| Rule 23(e) — Settlement approval Fairness factors, notice, and objectors | Fed. R. Civ. P. 23(e) |
| Rule 23(f) — Interlocutory appeals Discretionary review of certification orders | Fed. R. Civ. P. 23(f) |
| Rule 16.1 — Multidistrict litigation MDL management conferences — new rule effective Dec. 1, 2025 | Fed. R. Civ. P. 16.1 |
| Rule 702 — Expert testimony The 2023 amendments and Daubert gatekeeping | Fed. R. Evid. 702 |
| California JCCP coordination State-court coordination of complex actions — California’s MDL analogue | Cal. Civ. Proc. Code § 404 |
| JPML Rules of ProcedureComing soon MDL practice before the Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation | J.P.M.L. R. |
Agency Decisions & Guidance
The regulatory materials that drive — and defend against — aggregate claims.
| FDA Guidance Documents Drug, device, and labeling guidance central to preemption fights | Guidance |
| FTC — Consumer protection The deception and unfairness policy statements informing UDAP classes | Guidance |
Courts & Tribunals
The forums where aggregate litigation is fought — from the district courts and the JPML through the federal circuits.
| Appellate U.S. Supreme Court; all 13 federal circuits — with the Sixth, Seventh, Ninth, and Eleventh Circuits driving current Rule 23 doctrine; state supreme and appellate courts nationwide |
| Trial U.S. District Courts — including the major MDL venues (N.D. Cal., D.N.J., S.D. Fla., E.D. La., N.D. Ill.) — plus the remaining federal district courts nationwide; Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation |
Key Cases
The controlling authorities — linked to full text, treatment, and citing decisions in Midpage.
Amchem Products, Inc. v. Windsor
Settlement classes must still satisfy Rule 23 — predominance defeated the global asbestos deal.
State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co. v. Campbell
Due process limits punitive awards — single-digit ratios in all but the most exceptional cases.
Wyeth v. Levine
FDA approval does not automatically preempt state failure-to-warn claims for brand drugs.
Wal-Mart Stores, Inc. v. Dukes
Commonality requires a common contention capable of classwide resolution — no Trial by Formula.
Comcast Corp. v. Behrend
Classwide damages models must match the theory of liability.
Tyson Foods, Inc. v. Bouaphakeo
Representative evidence is permissible where each member could have relied on it individually.
China Agritech, Inc. v. Resh
American Pipe tolling does not extend to successive class actions.
Merck Sharp & Dohme Corp. v. Albrecht
Impossibility preemption is a question of law for the judge — clarifying “clear evidence.”
In re Rail Freight Fuel Surcharge Antitrust Litig.
Certification fails where the damages model sweeps in a meaningful number of uninjured members.
Facebook, Inc. v. Duguid
An autodialer must use a random or sequential number generator — narrowing TCPA exposure.
TransUnion LLC v. Ramirez
Every class member must have Article III standing to recover damages — no concrete harm, no standing.
Olean Wholesale Grocery Coop. v. Bumble Bee Foods
Rule 23 imposes no per se limit on certifying classes with more than de minimis uninjured members.
Speerly v. General Motors, LLC
Rigorous commonality and predominance analysis in multistate product-defect classes — decertifying the transmission class.