153909P.pdf   06/13/2018  Jim Sciaroni  v.  Target Corporation
   U.S. Court of Appeals Case No:  15-3909
                          and No:  15-3912
                          and No:  16-1203
                          and No:  16-1245
                          and No:  16-1408
   U.S. District Court for the District of Minnesota - Minneapolis   
   [PUBLISHED] [Shepherd, Author, with Benton, Circuit Judge, and Strand 
   District Judge] 
   Civil case - Target Data Breach Litigation. For the court's prior opinion 
   in the matter, See in Re Target Corp. Customer Data Sec. Breach Litig., 
   847 F.3d 608 (8th Cir. 2017). The district court did not err in certifying 
   the proposed class, which included both persons who suffered an actual 
   financial loss and those who had not yet suffered a loss; the court did 
   not abuse its discretion by including the costs of notice and 
   administration expenses as a benefit to the class as a whole in 
   calculating the total benefit to the class, as this is consistent with 
   Eighth Circuit case law on the matter; attorneys' fees award affirmed; the 
   district court did not abuse its discretion in finding the settlement 
   agreement was fair, reasonable and adequate. 
  
153909P.pdf   05/02/2017  Jim Sciaroni  v.  Target Corporation
   U.S. Court of Appeals Case No:  15-3909
                          and No:  15-3912
                          and No:  16-1203
                          and No:  16-1245
                          and No:  16-1408
   U.S. District Court for the District of Minnesota - Minneapolis   
   [PUBLISHED] [Benton, Author, with Shepherd, Circuit Judges and Strand, 
   District Judge] 
   Civil Case - class certification. This court in In re Target Corp. 
   Customer Data Sec. Breach Litig., 847 F.3d 608 (8th Cir. 2017), remanded 
   for further consideration of the class certification and reversed the 
   amount of the appeal bond, while retaining jurisdiction. Appellants moved 
   to amend the opinion, relating to the arguments raised by the various 
   parties. After filing his principal brief, Olson sought by means of a Rule 
   28(i) letter to adopt the arguments raised in Sciaroni's subsequently-file 
   principal brief. Olson's motion to amend is granted. Invoking Rule 28(i) 
   is permitted, allowing a party to adopt and join in issues raised in other 
   parties' briefs, notwithstanding the word limitation or brief-filing 
   deadlines. Judge Shepherd dissents. 
  
153909P.pdf   02/01/2017  Jim Sciaroni  v.  Target Corporation
   U.S. Court of Appeals Case No:  15-3909
                          and No:  15-3912
                          and No:  16-1203
                          and No:  16-1245
                          and No:  16-1408
   U.S. District Court for the District of Minnesota - Minneapolis   
   [PUBLISHED] [Shepherd, Author, with Benton, Circuit Judge, and Strand, 
   District Judge] 
   Civil case - Class Action in Target Security Breach. The district court's 
   statement in the class certification order regarding Rule 23(a)(4)'s 
   representation adequacy requirement are conclusions, not reasons, and on 
   their own do not constitute the "rigorous analysis" of whether 
   certification was proper in this case; the court has a continuous duty to 
   reevaluate certification throughout the litigation and the court's order 
   rejecting an allegation of intraclass conflict made before final 
   certification improperly refused to reconsider the issue solely because it 
   had already certified the class; as a result the district court abused its 
   discretion by failing to rigorously analyze the propriety of 
   certification, especially once new arguments regarding the adequacy of 
   representation were raised after preliminary certification, and the matter 
   is remanded to the district court for it to conduct and articulate a 
   rigorous analysis of Rule 23(a)'s certification prerequisites as applied 
   to this case; "costs on appeal" for Rule 7 purposes include only those 
   costs that a prevailing appellate litigant can recover under a specific 
   rule or statute; as a result the bond set in this matter, which included 
   delay-based administrative costs, is reversed and the matter remanded with 
   directions to reduce the Rule 7 bond to reflect only those costs appellees 
   will recover should they succeed in any issues remaining on appeal 
   following the district court's reconsideration of class certification. The 
   panel retains jurisdiction over any remaining issues following the 
   district court's disposition on remand. The district court shall certify 
   its findings and conclusions to this court within 120 days.