Plan Benefit Services, Inc., et al. v. Heriberto Chavez, et al.

The determination of whether a named plaintiff in a class action has Article III standing to bring claims on behalf of others has been addressed by the circuit courts through two divergent approaches:

1. the “class certification” approach where a plaintiff need only establish standing as to his or her own claims, and the commonality and typicality prongs under Fed. R. Civ. P. 23 supplant traditional Article III analysis; and

2. the “standing” approach where a plaintiff must establish standing not only as to his or her own claims but also the claims of absent class members before turning to Fed. R. Civ. P. 23. These conflicting approaches to determining standing in class actions create uncertainty for employers and service providers, as well as district and circuit courts. The two questions presented are: I. Whether the “standing” approach or the “class certification” approach is the proper test for determining Article III standing in class actions. II. Whether, under the “standing” approach, named plaintiffs have Article III standing to bring claims on behalf of absent class members who participated in other unrelated plans, sponsored by separate, unrelated employers, and who did not participate in the named plaintiffs’ employer’s retirement or health plan.