Appealing Class Certification Orders Under Rule 23(f)
Mark D. Harris and John E. Roberts of Proskauer Rose discuss the practical and strategic issues that ought to be considered when filing a Rule 23(f) petition, and suggest approaches to improve the likelihood of securing or defeating interlocutory review.
August 22, 2015 at 02:04 AM
11 minute read
The original version of this story was published on New York Law Journal
A trial court's decision on a motion for class certification, as a practical matter, often determines the outcome of the litigation. For defendants, the certification of a plaintiff class can dramatically increase their potential exposure, creating, in the words of the Second Circuit, an “inordinate or hydraulic pressure on defendants to settle, avoiding the risk, however small, of potentially ruinous liability.”1 On the plaintiffs' side, a denial of class certification can be the equivalent of a dismissal: If no single plaintiff has a large enough claim to justify the costs and risks of going it alone, then it may not be feasible to carry on the suit.
In federal court, however, the district court does not necessarily have the last word on class certification. In 1998, Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23 was amended to add subsection 23(f), which permits parties to petition the circuit court for interlocutory review of a class-certification order. In contrast to petitions for certiorari or other petitions for discretionary review, Rule 23(f) petitions are granted with some frequency. Despite the circuits' general aversion to interlocutory review, studies have concluded that Rule 23(f) petitions are granted about 25 percent of the time both in the Second Circuit and in the federal system as a whole.2 A survey suggests that the success rate in recent years has been even higher.3 Although the vast majority of Rule 23(f) petitions are still denied, a one-in-four success rate means that counsel on the losing side of a class-certification decision in federal court should always consider whether Rule 23(f) is a viable option.
This article discusses the practical and strategic issues that ought to be considered when filing a Rule 23(f) petition, and suggests approaches to improve the likelihood of securing or defeating interlocutory review.
NOT FOR REPRINT
© 2024 ALM Global, LLC, All Rights Reserved. Request academic re-use from www.copyright.com. All other uses, submit a request to [email protected]. For more information visit Asset & Logo Licensing.
Trending Stories
- 1The Law Firm Disrupted: For Big Law Names, Shorter is Sweeter
- 2Wine, Dine and Grind (Through the Weekend): Summer Associates Thirst For Experience in 'Real Matters'
- 3The 'Biden Effect' on Senior Attorneys: Should I Stay or Should I Go?
- 4'That's Disappointing': Only 11% of MDL Appointments Went to Attorneys of Color in 2023
- 5'You Are Not Alone': 120 Sex Assault Victims Plan to Sue Sean 'Diddy' Combs
Featured Firms
Law Offices of Gary Martin Hays & Associates, P.C.
(470) 294-1674
Law Offices of Mark E. Salomone
(857) 444-6468
Smith & Hassler
(713) 739-1250