Arguing Class Actions: Trusting Juries and the Courts to Manage Damages Issues in Class Actions
Arguing Class Actions is a monthly column by Adam J. Levitt for the National Law Journal.
June 03, 2024 at 06:00 AM
6 minute read
Juries are more than capable of deciding damages for class members, not just individual litigants. Acknowledging that fact begs the question of why courts (and defense counsel), in class action cases, place such an emphasis on the need for expert testimony regarding damages at both the class certification and merits stages of those cases. Class action litigation nowadays all too often turns into a battle of the experts (and efforts to exclude them), especially related to damages, which invades the province of the jury, contributes to out-of-control litigation costs for all parties and results in the overuse of judicial resources. Indeed, the cost of preparing an expert report on damages can conservatively range between $75,000-$250,000, per expert, and is often exponentially more, especially, for example, in antitrust litigation.
Notwithstanding this blind rush to "expertize" damages issues, the fact is that juries and the courts can and should be trusted to handle those issues in class actions. For example, in a recent class action automobile defect trial in which my firm served as lead counsel, the jury awarded $2,700 per class vehicle, for a total of over $102 million in classwide damages, which they awarded following less than a full day of deliberation after an almost three-week trial. See Siqueiros v. General Motors, 676 F. Supp. 3d 776, 814–15 (N.D. Cal. 2023) (concluding there was substantial evidence to support the jury's award of $2,700 per class vehicle). Although the plaintiffs there had a damages expert who testified that the cost of repair could be used as a basis for damages to restore to each class member the benefit of their bargain, the $2,700 amount came from an internal GM memo. The court further concluded that the expert's testimony could be applied classwide, as it was based on an objective standard, and not the individual subjective expectations of each consumer. This example shows how juries can weigh record evidence and expert testimony at trial to determine not only per-class member damages but also classwide damages.
This content has been archived.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
© 2025 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 AllCrypto Exchange’s ‘Meteoric Rise’ Leads to Nationwide Class Action Trend
4 minute read'The Tobacco Industry of This Decade': Slew of Class Actions Accuse DraftKings of Creating Addicts
5 minute readPentagon Settles Suit Seeking to Clear Records of Service Members Discharged for Being LGBTQ
3 minute readTrending Stories
- 1Uber Files RICO Suit Against Plaintiff-Side Firms Alleging Fraudulent Injury Claims
- 2The Law Firm Disrupted: Scrutinizing the Elephant More Than the Mouse
- 3Inherent Diminished Value Damages Unavailable to 3rd-Party Claimants, Court Says
- 4Pa. Defense Firm Sued by Client Over Ex-Eagles Player's $43.5M Med Mal Win
- 5Losses Mount at Morris Manning, but Departing Ex-Chair Stays Bullish About His Old Firm's Future
Who Got The Work
J. Brugh Lower of Gibbons has entered an appearance for industrial equipment supplier Devco Corporation in a pending trademark infringement lawsuit. The suit, accusing the defendant of selling knock-off Graco products, was filed Dec. 18 in New Jersey District Court by Rivkin Radler on behalf of Graco Inc. and Graco Minnesota. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Zahid N. Quraishi, is 3:24-cv-11294, Graco Inc. et al v. Devco Corporation.
Who Got The Work
Rebecca Maller-Stein and Kent A. Yalowitz of Arnold & Porter Kaye Scholer have entered their appearances for Hanaco Venture Capital and its executives, Lior Prosor and David Frankel, in a pending securities lawsuit. The action, filed on Dec. 24 in New York Southern District Court by Zell, Aron & Co. on behalf of Goldeneye Advisors, accuses the defendants of negligently and fraudulently managing the plaintiff's $1 million investment. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Vernon S. Broderick, is 1:24-cv-09918, Goldeneye Advisors, LLC v. Hanaco Venture Capital, Ltd. et al.
Who Got The Work
Attorneys from A&O Shearman has stepped in as defense counsel for Toronto-Dominion Bank and other defendants in a pending securities class action. The suit, filed Dec. 11 in New York Southern District Court by Bleichmar Fonti & Auld, accuses the defendants of concealing the bank's 'pervasive' deficiencies in regards to its compliance with the Bank Secrecy Act and the quality of its anti-money laundering controls. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Arun Subramanian, is 1:24-cv-09445, Gonzalez v. The Toronto-Dominion Bank et al.
Who Got The Work
Crown Castle International, a Pennsylvania company providing shared communications infrastructure, has turned to Luke D. Wolf of Gordon Rees Scully Mansukhani to fend off a pending breach-of-contract lawsuit. The court action, filed Nov. 25 in Michigan Eastern District Court by Hooper Hathaway PC on behalf of The Town Residences LLC, accuses Crown Castle of failing to transfer approximately $30,000 in utility payments from T-Mobile in breach of a roof-top lease and assignment agreement. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Susan K. Declercq, is 2:24-cv-13131, The Town Residences LLC v. T-Mobile US, Inc. et al.
Who Got The Work
Wilfred P. Coronato and Daniel M. Schwartz of McCarter & English have stepped in as defense counsel to Electrolux Home Products Inc. in a pending product liability lawsuit. The court action, filed Nov. 26 in New York Eastern District Court by Poulos Lopiccolo PC and Nagel Rice LLP on behalf of David Stern, alleges that the defendant's refrigerators’ drawers and shelving repeatedly break and fall apart within months after purchase. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Joan M. Azrack, is 2:24-cv-08204, Stern v. Electrolux Home Products, Inc.
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