## Facts

- Robert La Mar brought a putative class action under the Truth in Lending Act (TILA) seeking statutory damages for alleged disclosure violations.
- La Mar sued H & B Novelty & Loan Co. and attempted to proceed against all Oregon-licensed pawnbrokers on behalf of all customers of those pawnbrokers.
- La Mar had transacted only with H & B, not with other pawnbrokers.
- The district court certified a Rule 23(b)(3) class that effectively included claims involving customers of pawnbrokers other than H & B.
- After certification, the district court approved a settlement between La Mar and H & B (covering H & B borrowers who did not opt out), leaving the certification issue as to other pawnbrokers for appeal.
- In a consolidated companion appeal (Kinsling), a named plaintiff sought class treatment against eight airlines despite having individual dealings with only two; the district court dismissed claims against the six airlines that had not injured him.

## Issues

1. Whether a named plaintiff with a claim against one defendant may represent a Rule 23(b)(3) class asserting claims against other, unrelated defendants who did not injure the named plaintiff, based only on similar alleged misconduct.
2. Whether Rule 23’s typicality and adequacy requirements permit a plaintiff to litigate claims involving defendants with whom the plaintiff had no transactions and suffered no injury.
3. Whether any exception permits such multi-defendant class litigation absent the plaintiff’s direct injury by each defendant.

## Decision

- The Ninth Circuit held that a plaintiff may not maintain a class action against unrelated defendants as to whom the plaintiff has no cause of action and suffered no injury, even if the defendants’ conduct is alleged to be closely similar.
- In La Mar, the court reversed the class certification to the extent it extended beyond claims involving H & B and its customers.
- In Kinsling, the court affirmed dismissal of claims against the airlines with whom the plaintiff had no dealings and from whom he suffered no injury.
- The court indicated that multi-defendant class treatment may be possible where a unifying relationship (such as conspiracy, concerted scheme, or comparable legal linkage) connects defendants, but no such link was shown in these cases.

## Legal Principles

- Article III requires a named plaintiff to have a personal stake and justiciable controversy with respect to each defendant; similarity of alleged statutory violations does not substitute for injury-in-fact traceable to each defendant sued.
- Rule 23 is procedural and does not expand substantive rights or eliminate standing requirements.
- Rule 23(a) typicality and adequacy generally limit representative litigation to class members injured by the same defendant(s) responsible for the named plaintiff’s injury.
- A plaintiff ordinarily cannot represent class members’ claims against other defendants when the plaintiff has no claim against those defendants.
- A potential exception exists when defendants are tied by a concrete legal or factual relationship (often described as a juridical link), creating a single controversy encompassing multiple defendants.

## Conclusion

The Ninth Circuit limited class actions to defendants who injured the named plaintiff, holding that Rule 23 cannot be used to assert class claims against unrelated defendants based solely on similar conduct, absent a unifying linkage that creates a justiciable controversy as to each defendant.


La Mar v. H & B Novelty & Loan Co., 489 F.2d 461 (9th Cir. 1973)