October 10, 2019 posted by

Apr 9 , Brief of respondents Caroline Behrend, et al. in opposition filed. Apr 24 , DISTRIBUTED for Conference of May 10, In Comcast Corp. et. al. v. Behrend, et. al., the Supreme Court of the United States, in a decision written by Justice Antonin Scalia. Co-author, What The Supreme Court’s Decision in Comcast v. Behrend Means for ERISA Class Certification, ABA Employee Benefits Committee Newsletter.

Author: Mooguk Bralmaran
Country: Paraguay
Language: English (Spanish)
Genre: Science
Published (Last): 7 November 2008
Pages: 356
PDF File Size: 11.43 Mb
ePub File Size: 6.17 Mb
ISBN: 470-1-11884-937-9
Downloads: 30823
Price: Free* [*Free Regsitration Required]
Uploader: Mezigor

The plaintiffs asserted that a model describing classwide injury and related damages is not a prerequisite under Rule 23, and that such a model would be developed after certification and fact discovery.

Respondents counter that Dr. PerryTown of Greece v.

First, the Court emphasized that it may be necessary for the trial court to review the evidence offered by the plaintiffs to determine whether the requirements of the class-certification rule have been satisfied and that it is legal error for a trial court to decline to review that evidence simply because it relates to the merits of the case.

On March 27, in Comcast Corp. Despite extensive briefing of the issue, the Court did not decide whether the Daubert standard or some other level of scrutiny applies at the class-certification stage. KurtzmanVan Orden v. The Ohio Supreme Court accepted the appeal. The McClave model, however, did not calculate the plaintiffs’ alleged damages specific to the overbuilder theory.

This instruction applies with equal force to the requirements of both Rule 23 a and Rule 23 b. Though it is notable that, during the oral argument, no party and no Justice seemed to have any doubt that Daubert did apply at the certification stage; the only question was whether Comcast had waived the Daubert argument. Indiana United States v.

Comcast Corp. v. Behrend – Wikipedia

See Brief for RespondentsCaroline Behrend et al. Application 11A to extend the time to file a petition for a writ of certiorari from December 19, to January 18,submitted to Justice Alito. The majority concluded that the Third Circuit erred by failing to consider the individual issues presented by the plaintiffs’ damages evidence simply because, in the Third Circuit’s view, comcas arguments would also be pertinent to the merits determination.


Receive a daily email digest from Feedburner by entering your email. Wyoming Home Depot U. United States Sturgeon v. In sum, this case presents the Supreme Court with an opportunity to clarify the standard for class-action certification. Petitioner Comcast contends that the plaintiffs failed to meet their burden under Rule 23 for class certification.

Comcast v. Behrend – SCOTUSblog

JavaScript is turned v.behrnd in your web browser. Specifically, the Court’s opinion v.berend that district courts must critically examine damages methodologies to determine whether they are based on just and reasonable inferences and are not merely speculative and that individual issues of damages may require the denial of class certification.

Guido State and local governments are covered employers under the Age Discrimination in Employment Act of regardless of the number of employees they have.

The authors would like to thank former Supreme Court Reporter of Decisions Frank Wagner for his assistance in editing this preview. Fourth, and perhaps most importantly, the Court found that questions of individual alleged damages against Comcast “will inevitably overwhelm questions common to the class. Bethune-Hill Virginia Uranium, Inc. Infollowing evidentiary hearings and oral argument, the District Court recertified the proposed class.

Petitioners argue that because the evidence presented did not satisfy admissibility standards under Federal Rule of Evidence and Daubertthe class-certification order should be vacated. Reversed, in an opinion by Justice Scalia on March 27, May 15, where the plaintiff presented no facts supporting Rule 23 b 3 superiority, class certification was denied; citing favorably to Comcast. Motion for leave to file a supplemental volume of the joint appendix under seal filed by petitioners Comcast Corporation, et al.


Nov 5, Tr. In fact, the Court noted that the predominance criterion of Rule 23 b 3 is even more demanding than Rule 23 a.

Comcast v. Behrend

Damages evidence must be closely scrutinized at the class-certification stage and may be sufficiently individualized as to defeat class certification. Steager Department of Commerce v. Stitt Virginia House of Delegates v.

Justices Ruth Bader Ginsburg and Stephen Breyer, jointly writing for the dissent, argued that the Court should have dismissed the writ of certiorari as improvidently granted. Common questions are those that can be resolved on a class-wide basis.

Comcast Corp. v. Behrend

Wilkie Whether the Supreme Court should overrule Auer v. As with many Supreme Court decisions, litigants generally and the lower courts will grapple with determining the full impact of Comcast. Although the McClave model did not isolate damages resulting from the overbuilder theory of antitrust impact, the district court certified the class.

We’ll assume you’re ok with this, but you can leave if you wish. Respondent Caroline Behrend et al. United States, ex rel. Brief amicus curiae of Cato Institute filed.

The majority noted that a plaintiff seeking certification of a class bears the burden of satisfying “through evidentiary proof” at least one of the provisions of Rule 23 b and emphasized that the Court has “[r]epeatedly” instructed that district courts may need to look beyond the pleadings in analyzing class-certification motions. Comcast petitioned v.behrennd Supreme Court for a writ of certiorari on the class-certification issue, but in the meantime reached a tentative settlement of the entire case with the plaintiffs.