Edward Huyer v. Rhadiante Van de Voorde
2017 U.S. App. LEXIS 2290
| 8th Cir. | 2017Background
- Class action against Wells Fargo over automatic property-inspection fees on delinquent mortgages; parties reached a $25,750,000 settlement in 2015.
- Settlement divided class into three subgroups: active loans; paid-in-full loans; post-sale loans (foreclosure/short sale/deed-in-lieu/charge-off).
- Active and paid-in-full members receive automatic cash awards; post-sale members must submit proofs of claim to receive payment.
- More than 2.7 million notice packets were sent; Van de Voorde received notice identifying her as an active or paid-in-full class member and filed a written objection arguing inadequate representation of post-sale members.
- District court approved final settlement, finding proof-of-claim requirement for post-sale members justified and representatives adequate; Van de Voorde then appealed without having intervened.
- Eighth Circuit dismissed the appeal for lack of Article III standing because Van de Voorde, as an active or paid-in-full member, suffered no concrete injury from the post-sale proof-of-claim requirement.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether an unnamed class member who objected has Article III standing to appeal settlement features that do not affect her subgroup | Van de Voorde: Devlin permits objecting class members to appeal; she objects to inadequate representation of post-sale members | Wells Fargo: Van de Voorde, as active/paid-in-full member, is not aggrieved by post-sale proof-of-claim requirement and thus lacks Article III standing | Dismissed for lack of Article III standing: objecting alone does not confer standing when appellant suffers no concrete, particularized injury |
| Whether Devlin automatically confers Article III jurisdiction to objecting unnamed class members | Van de Voorde: Invokes Devlin to justify appellate standing after objecting | Wells Fargo: Devlin does not eliminate Article III standing requirements | Court: Devlin addresses party status for appeal, not Article III standing; objector still must satisfy Lujan requirements |
| Whether an objection based on desire not to be overcompensated at others’ expense is a cognizable injury | Van de Voorde: Asserts psychic/abstract injury from unequal compensation | Wells Fargo: Such abstract concern is not a concrete injury | Court: Abstract psychic harm is insufficient for Article III standing |
| Whether prudential standing or failure to intervene bars the appeal | Van de Voorde: Did not intervene but relied on Devlin | Wells Fargo: Failure to intervene may bar appeal under some precedents | Court (concurring): The better route is prudential standing—objector seeks to vindicate others’ rights and therefore lacks prudential standing; outcome same |
Key Cases Cited
- Devlin v. Scardelletti, 536 U.S. 1 (2002) (addressed whether an unnamed objecting class member can be treated as a "party" for appeal; did not resolve Article III standing)
- Lujan v. Defenders of Wildlife, 504 U.S. 555 (1992) (establishes Article III standing elements: injury, causation, redressability)
- Iowa League of Cities v. EPA, 711 F.3d 844 (8th Cir. 2013) (standing requirements for federal jurisdiction)
- Delorme v. United States, 354 F.3d 810 (8th Cir. 2004) (objectors must meet constitutional and prudential standing)
- MainStreet Org. of Realtors v. Calumet City, Ill., 505 F.3d 742 (7th Cir. 2007) (abstract upset or psychic injury does not confer Article III standing)
- Hill v. State St. Corp., 794 F.3d 227 (1st Cir. 2015) (objectors lack standing to challenge fees that would not benefit them)
- Silverman v. Motorola Solutions, Inc., 739 F.3d 956 (7th Cir. 2014) (objector who would receive nothing lacks interest in fee reductions)
- Knisley v. Network Assocs., Inc., 312 F.3d 1123 (9th Cir. 2002) (objector lacks standing if remedy would not actually benefit him)
- Arizonans for Official English v. Arizona, 520 U.S. 43 (1997) (Article III standing required for appellate review)