Federal courts scrutinize class certification petitions
Experts note trend toward more evidentiary hearings
June 30, 2012 at 08:00 PM
6 minute read
Beginning in 1998, Comcast Corp. undertook a strategy to increase its share of the market for cable services in the Philadelphia area. It bought out smaller competitors and then made a series of “swap” contracts with AT&T Inc., Time Warner Cable Inc. and other cable providers. The contracts allowed Comcast to consolidate its dominance in the Philadelphia area by trading cable systems it owned outside of Philadelphia for cable systems that competitors owned within the Philadelphia area. By 2002, Comcast customers accounted for more than 77 percent of cable subscribers in the Philadelphia area.
According to attorneys representing a class of approximately 2.2 million subscribers and former subscribers to Comcast cable services, those “swap” deals suppressed competition and raised prices for consumers in the Philadelphia area in violation of Sections 1 and 2 of the Sherman Act.
Both sides in Behrend v. Comcast have vigorously fought about certification of the case as a class action. The case was first certified as a class in 2007. For the past five years, the parties have fought the issue through a series of appeals that finally landed in the U.S. Supreme Court in January. Lawyers expect a decision on Comcast's petition for certiorari by the end of the court's term.
Whether or not the high court grants review, the case is emblematic of the changes taking place nationwide in the high-stakes world of class action litigation.
“Litigants are seeing a nuanced shift in certifications,” says Bill Moran, a shareholder at Murnane Brandt. “Federal courts are applying greater scrutiny to certification petitions.”
Twisted History
Under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23, the party seeking class certification has the burden to show that a class action is appropriate because common issues of fact predominate over individual inquiries about the injuries suffered by the class members. But the meaning of that requirement has been a moving target for the past several years. The 3rd Circuit's pronouncements on the topic have gained particular significance because it hears 25 percent of the country's antitrust class actions.
In Behrend, District Judge John Padova first certified the class in May 2007, relying on the written submissions of the parties. But in the wake of the 3rd Circuit's watershed 2008 decision In re Hydrogen Peroxide Antitrust Litigation, which required courts to make factual findings before certifying a class action, Judge Padova partially vacated the decision. Before Hydrogen Peroxide, most courts required the party moving for class certification to simply reach a threshold showing that there was evidence to support a finding of commonality under Rule 23. The Supreme Court later affirmed the principles announced in Hydrogen Peroxide in its 2011 decision in Wal-Mart Stores Inc. v. Dukes.
Ultimately, Judge Padova recertified the class in January 2010 after conducting extensive proceedings to gather evidence. The court held a four-day evidentiary hearing in which both sides presented experts and live testimony from witnesses, including the president of Comcast. In addition, the court held oral argument on the motion for certification.
The 3rd Circuit affirmed the decision and declined en banc review. Comcast has taken the case to the Supreme Court, arguing that the district court should have gone even further in its consideration of “merits arguments” before certifying the class. Specifically, Comcast contends that the lower courts erred in refusing to consider evidence regarding whether the alleged anticompetitive practices could have a classwide impact, given that the competitors that it allegedly deterred from expanding in the Philadelphia area were not licensed in every county the court considered part of the class. The 3rd Circuit ruled that it wasn't proper to reach those questions at this stage.
Stricter Scrutiny
Behrend is emblematic of a trend in class action litigation that has been growing in federal courts throughout the country since Congress passed the Class Action Fairness Act (CAFA) in 2005. Federal courts are applying more rigorous scrutiny to petitions for class certification, including developing an extensive evidentiary record before certifying a class.
“It was not unusual for courts to deal with the question of commonality on written submissions from the parties,” Moran says. “Now, we are increasingly seeing evidentiary hearings with expert testimony. The federal courts are trying to be more uniform in how they administer class actions.”
That uniformity is key because, although CAFA provides for expedited appellate review of certification decisions, a district judge's decision on class certification is entitled to a great deal of deference on appeal.
Plaintiffs counsel in Behrend think certiorari is unlikely due to the deferential standard of review and the extensive evidence the district court considered.
“It's well established that the plaintiffs' burden is to show that common evidence is available to prove the class members' claims at trial,” says David Woodward, an officer at Heins Mills & Olson and co-lead counsel for the Berhend class. “Judge Padova applied a rigorous analysis based on an extensive evidentiary record.”
The district court seemingly agrees that Supreme Court review isn't imminent, and gave the parties a September trial date.
The Advantage of Certainty
The trend toward more evidentiary hearings at the class certification stage is helpful to corporate defendants in a number of ways. First, the procedures involved in certifying a class are becoming increasingly complex, time-consuming and costly, often amounting to putting on a small-scale trial. Defendants are often equipped with superior resources to fight those early battles. Plaintiffs lawyers have criticized the trend for that reason.
“The defendants want to make you try your case as many times as possible,” says Stephen Scheller, a Philadelphia class action attorney. “They want plaintiffs to put on their whole case at the certification stage. That isn't fair.”
Second, when judges base class certification decisions on a more extensive evidentiary record, the parties have greater certainty that the decision is unlikely to change on appeal. This also allows both sides to engage in settlement discussions after ruling on the certification petition with more information. This is important because in the majority of cases, once a class is certified or rejected, settlement is the next logical step.
“Class certification is the Super Bowl,” Moran says. “What happens at that stage is most likely dispositive.”
This content has been archived. It is available through our partners, LexisNexis® and Bloomberg Law.
To view this content, please continue to their sites.
Not a Lexis Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
Not a Bloomberg Law Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
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.
You Might Like
View AllLululemon Faces Legal Fire Over Its DEI Program After Bias Complaints Surface
3 minute readOld Laws, New Tricks: Lawyers Using Patchwork of Creative Legal Theories to Target New Tech
Lawsuit Against Amazon Could Reshape E-Commerce Landscape
Trending Stories
- 1From 'Confusing Labyrinth' to Speeding 'Rollercoaster': Uncertainty Reigns in Title IX as Litigators Await Second Trump Admin
- 2Critical Mass With Law.com’s Amanda Bronstad: Why Jurors in California Failed to Reach Verdict Over Zantac, Bankruptcy Judge Tables Sanctions Against Beasley Allen Attorney
- 3Jones Day Client Seeks Indemnification for $7.2M Privacy Settlement, Plus Defense Costs
- 4Elections Have Consequences: Some Thoughts on Labor and Employment Law Topics in 2025 and Beyond
- 5Law Firm Associates, Staffers Continue to Put a Premium On Workplace Flexibility, Study Finds
Who Got The Work
Michael G. Bongiorno, Andrew Scott Dulberg and Elizabeth E. Driscoll from Wilmer Cutler Pickering Hale and Dorr have stepped in to represent Symbotic Inc., an A.I.-enabled technology platform that focuses on increasing supply chain efficiency, and other defendants in a pending shareholder derivative lawsuit. The case, filed Oct. 2 in Massachusetts District Court by the Brown Law Firm on behalf of Stephen Austen, accuses certain officers and directors of misleading investors in regard to Symbotic's potential for margin growth by failing to disclose that the company was not equipped to timely deploy its systems or manage expenses through project delays. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Nathaniel M. Gorton, is 1:24-cv-12522, Austen v. Cohen et al.
Who Got The Work
Edmund Polubinski and Marie Killmond of Davis Polk & Wardwell have entered appearances for data platform software development company MongoDB and other defendants in a pending shareholder derivative lawsuit. The action, filed Oct. 7 in New York Southern District Court by the Brown Law Firm, accuses the company's directors and/or officers of falsely expressing confidence in the company’s restructuring of its sales incentive plan and downplaying the severity of decreases in its upfront commitments. The case is 1:24-cv-07594, Roy v. Ittycheria et al.
Who Got The Work
Amy O. Bruchs and Kurt F. Ellison of Michael Best & Friedrich have entered appearances for Epic Systems Corp. in a pending employment discrimination lawsuit. The suit was filed Sept. 7 in Wisconsin Western District Court by Levine Eisberner LLC and Siri & Glimstad on behalf of a project manager who claims that he was wrongfully terminated after applying for a religious exemption to the defendant's COVID-19 vaccine mandate. The case, assigned to U.S. Magistrate Judge Anita Marie Boor, is 3:24-cv-00630, Secker, Nathan v. Epic Systems Corporation.
Who Got The Work
David X. Sullivan, Thomas J. Finn and Gregory A. Hall from McCarter & English have entered appearances for Sunrun Installation Services in a pending civil rights lawsuit. The complaint was filed Sept. 4 in Connecticut District Court by attorney Robert M. Berke on behalf of former employee George Edward Steins, who was arrested and charged with employing an unregistered home improvement salesperson. The complaint alleges that had Sunrun informed the Connecticut Department of Consumer Protection that the plaintiff's employment had ended in 2017 and that he no longer held Sunrun's home improvement contractor license, he would not have been hit with charges, which were dismissed in May 2024. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Jeffrey A. Meyer, is 3:24-cv-01423, Steins v. Sunrun, Inc. et al.
Who Got The Work
Greenberg Traurig shareholder Joshua L. Raskin has entered an appearance for boohoo.com UK Ltd. in a pending patent infringement lawsuit. The suit, filed Sept. 3 in Texas Eastern District Court by Rozier Hardt McDonough on behalf of Alto Dynamics, asserts five patents related to an online shopping platform. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Rodney Gilstrap, is 2:24-cv-00719, Alto Dynamics, LLC v. boohoo.com UK Limited.
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