Predictions from some quarters that the Third Circuit’s decision in Byrd v. Aaron’s, 784 F.3d 154 (3d Cir. 2015), signaled a weakening of the “ascertainability” standard for class actions brought in the federal courts in New Jersey have not been borne out, as a survey of District of New Jersey decisions demonstrates that the courts continue to apply a strict standard for “ascertainability.” This trend has consequences for consumer class actions in which there is difficulty verifying who is in the class or in which the means of doing so is not administratively feasible.
In recent years, the Third Circuit has led the way in defining a strict standard for analyzing when a proposed class is “ascertainable” for class certification purposes. Unlike other circuits and New Jersey state courts that just require a proposed class to be objectively defined, the Third Circuit also requires that class members be identifiable by verifiable and administratively feasible means. The law in the Third Circuit was settled in a trilogy of decisions in Marcus v. BMW of North America, 687 F.3d 583 (3d Cir. 2012); Hayes v. Wal-Mart Stores, 725 F.3d 349 (3d Cir. 2013); and Carrera v. Bayer Corp., 727 F.3d 300 (3d Cir. 2013).
This content has been archived.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
LexisNexis® and Bloomberg Law are third party online distributors of the broad collection of current and archived versions of ALM's legal news publications. LexisNexis® and Bloomberg Law customers are able to access and use ALM's content, including content from the National Law Journal, The American Lawyer, Legaltech News, The New York Law Journal, and Corporate Counsel, as well as other sources of legal information.
For questions call 1-877-256-2472 or contact us at [email protected]
