Whether Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23(f) allows a court of appeals to grant interlocutory review of a class-certification decision based solely on manifest error

QUESTIONS PRESENTED Plaintiffs brought a purported class action claiming that they bought or leased FCAmanufactured vehicles that were “excessively vulnerable” to being hacked. Even though no class member’s vehicle had ever actually been hacked, the district court held that plaintiffs had Article III standing and certified three statewide classes containing more than 220,000 consumers claiming $440 million in damages. In a series of three rulings, the Seventh Circuit allowed this class action to proceed. The questions presented are: 1. Whether Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23(f) allows a court of appeals to grant interlocutory review of a class-certification decision based solely on manifest error. 2. Whether the class-certification decision is manifestly erroneous because plaintiffs lack Article III standing; because the district court failed to conduct a rigorous predominance analysis; and because class treatment is not the superior method of adjudication where there is no common question uniting the three statewide classes.