Charles McNair v. Synapse Grp Inc
2012 U.S. App. LEXIS 4593
3rd Cir.2012Background
- Appellants are former Synapse customers seeking to certify a Rule 23(b)(2) injunctive-relief class regarding automatic renewal notices.
- District Court denied class certification; Appellants sought Rule 23(f) interlocutory review.
- Synapse used a Standard Postcard (pre-2009) and a Single Postcard (starting 2009) to notify about renewals.
- Postcards allegedly deceived customers about automatic renewals; class definition targeted those who received the Standard Postcard.
- Appellants argued they could obtain injunctive relief on behalf of the class due to likelihood of future injury; district court accepted this for standing purposes.
- Court affirms denial of class certification based on lack of Article III standing to seek injunctive relief, i.e., no substantial likelihood of future injury by non-customers; standing must exist for at least one named plaintiff.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Appellants have Article III standing to seek injunctive relief. | Appellants contend they are likely to become Synapse customers again. | Synapse argues Appellants lack current or imminent injury as non-customers. | No standing; no credible likelihood of future injury. |
| Whether standing defeats certification of a Rule 23(b)(2) injunctive class. | If any named plaintiff has standing, class certification can proceed. | Appellants lack standing to seek prospective relief for the class. | Standing is required for class certification; absent standing, denial affirmed. |
| Whether the “capable of repetition yet evading review” doctrine salvages standing. | Appellants rely on repetition of renewal cycles to avoid mootness. | Doctrine applies only in exceptional, limited circumstances. | Not satisfied; cannot preserve standing here. |
Key Cases Cited
- City of Los Angeles v. Lyons, 461 U.S. 95 (U.S. 1983) (standing requires likelihood of future injury for injunctive relief)
- O’Shea v. Littleton, 414 U.S. 488 (U.S. 1974) (live controversy required; standing basics to class actions)
- Summers v. Earth Island Inst., 555 U.S. 488 (U.S. 2009) (capable of repetition yet evading review limited applicability)
- Davis v. FEC, 554 U.S. 724 (U.S. 2008) (standing evaluated at litigation outset; mootness concerns later stage)
- Spencer v. Kemna, 523 U.S. 1 (U.S. 1998) (capable of repetition yet evading review requires reasonable expectation of repetition)