Whether a class may be certified under Rule 23 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure when the class claims turn on materially different contractual rights and obligations between the defendant and each class member

QUESTION PRESENTED The Eighth Circuit affirmed class certification in this case even though each of the more than 160,000 class members signed a different, bespoke contract with defendant Central Payment Co., LLC (““CPAY”). The court of appeals decision prevents CPAY from invoking the terms of each contract to raise individualized defenses against the claims of absent class members. That result does not square with the Rules Enabling Act, the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, or this Court’s precedents. It also creates a circuit split. Courts in the Fourth, Sixth, Tenth, and Eleventh Circuits have held that where a putative class asserts claims implicating materially diverse contracts, Rule 23’s requirements cannot be satisfied. By departing from those decisions, the Eighth Circuit’s ruling raises the following important question: Whether a class may be certified under Rule 23 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure when the class claims turn on materially different contractual rights and obligations between the defendant and each class member.