New Entrant in the LLM Citation Shootout
Last week, I compared four of the leading models running in the cloud with four open weight models running locally. I asked
I need a 9th circuit citation for when a Rule 23 certified damages class must prove standing.
ChatGPT easily elbowed its way into the final head-to-head with Google Search AI mode to win by a complete advance sheet citation.
Enter Flint
The cool kids have been talking this one up, so I fired it up locally and gave it the same prompt, followed 90 seconds later by
14 tool calls 🔍 web_search
69 tok/s
Based on my research, here is the key Ninth Circuit citation you need:
Primary Citation: Healy v. Milliman, Inc. Healy v. Milliman, Inc., No. 24-3327, F.4th, 2026 U.S. App. LEXIS 554 (9th Cir. Jan. 9, 2026)
Holding
The Ninth Circuit addressed whether, following a Rule 23 class certification in a damages action, both named and unnamed class members must present evidence of Article III standing at the summary judgment stage. The Court answered yes.
Specifically, the Court held that in certified Rule 23(b)(3) damages classes, both named and unnamed class members must present evidence of standing at the summary judgment stage, not just at trial or during post-trial proceedings.
Key Details
Context: The appeal arose from a Fair Credit Reporting Act action against Milliman, Inc. After the district court certified a class, Milliman sought summary judgment, arguing there was insufficient evidence that all class members had suffered an Article III injury.
Procedure: The Court accepted interlocutory review under 28 U.S.C. § 1292(b) and reversed the district court’s partial grant of summary judgment in favor of Milliman, remanding for further proceedings.
Standard: The Court held that the “usual summary judgment standards” apply.
Reasoning: Writing for the Court (Judge Sidney R. Thomas), the Court concluded that “the logic of TransUnion LLC v. Ramirez” requires evidence showing a genuine dispute of material fact as to standing for both named and unnamed class members, and that TransUnion compels unnamed members of a certified class seeking money damages to present evidence of Article III standing after certification but before trial at the summary judgment stage.
Background / Related Authority The decision favorably cites and builds on the Supreme Court’s recent standing precedent in TransUnion LLC v. Ramirez, 588 U.S. ___ (2019), which addressed Article III standing in the class context.
The Court also noted it was the first time the Ninth Circuit had held that both named plaintiffs and absent class members must present evidence of standing at summary judgment, and it identified prior Ninth Circuit decisions that, in light of recent Supreme Court precedent, were no longer good law.
Bottom line: For your citation needs, the controlling recent Ninth Circuit authority requiring a Rule 23 certified damages class to prove standing is Healy v. Milliman, Inc., No. 24-3327, F.4th, 2026 U.S. App. LEXIS 554 (9th Cir. Jan. 9, 2026) — holding that both named and unnamed class members must demonstrate Article III standing via evidence submitted at the summary judgment stage.
Would you like me to pull the full opinion text or any of the cited prior panel decisions for additional support?
That kicks the two proprietary models out of first place. The sole ding is a near miss on the 164 F.4th 701, 708–09 (9th Cir. 2026) pinpoint.
It’s just one test, on a recently trained model with some clever tech under the hood, but that’s a quantum leap from the recent local model performance that I tested earlier.
THIS is what I do
I’m a senior lawyer with Big Law, ALJ and in-house experience at large financial institutions who is also AI- and data science savvy. In my spare time away from exercising my law stack on a variety of models, on my own dime and for hire, I’m available for consultation. Ping me at richardcareaga@protonmail.com or connect through LinkedIn.