In Bates v. Bankers Life and Casualty Co., ___ F.3d ___ (9th Cir. Feb. 24, 2017), the Ninth Circuit dismissed, for lack of jurisdiction, an appeal from an order striking class allegations from the complaint:
There are only two procedural avenues for appealing an order striking class allegations made under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23: (1) asking the district court to certify an order for interlocutory review pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1292(b); or (2) filing a petition for permission to appeal pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23(f). See Plata v. Davis, 329 F.3d 1101, 1107–08 (9th Cir. 2003); Kamm v. Cal. City Dev. Co., 509 F.2d 205, 206 (9th Cir. 1975). .... Plaintiffs did not use either of these procedural avenues, and we therefore lack jurisdiction to hear their challenge to the order striking their class allegations.
Slip op. at 6-7.
If pending H.R. 985 passes, this would all change. Among other attacks on the class action process, the bill would make all orders either denying or granting class certification immediately appealable as of right. That would automatically add at least a two-year delay in the middle of almost every class action. (Something similar was proposed in California some time ago, but never made it out of committee.) Please contact your representative and tell him or her to vote no on H.R. 985. For those on the defense side, consider the fact that curtailing class actions, which is the goal of this bill, would be bad for your law practice. The fewer class actions, the fewer cases for clients to hire you to defend.