Class Actions Brief Blog

Earlier this month, the Supreme Court declined to hear an appeal from the Ninth Circuit’s decision in Lytle v. Nutramax Laboratories Inc. affirming the certification of a class of owners of elderly dogs, alleging that the Cosequin supplement sold for canine joint health and mobility has no such benefit. That decision threatens to turn the circuit split over the standard for expert opinion at class certification into a major rift by permitting plaintiffs in the Ninth Circuit to rely on an expert model for which the expert “has not collected all of the necessary data to perform his ...

One of the key issues at class certification is whether plaintiffs have met their burden to establish commonality and predominance: that “questions of law or fact common to class members predominate over any questions affecting only individual members,” as required by Fed. R. Civ. P. 23(b)(3). Plaintiffs often rely on an expert model purporting to show that injury and damages can be determined classwide, so those issues do not defeat predominance.

A recent series of cases, most involving the insurance value of cars totaled in accidents, provide a useful reminder that, when a ...

Rule 23 does not explicitly require that a court be able to determine who the members are before certifying a class. But judges have found implicit in the Rule a requirement that membership in a defined class be “ascertainable” or “definite.” For example, a court cannot address the numerosity requirement or provide effective relief to the class without first determining who the members of a class are.

In recent years, the federal appellate courts have adopted two approaches to addressing ascertainability. The first approach, adopted by the First, Third, Fourth, and Sixth ...

In order to have a class certified, the plaintiffs have the burden of proving to the satisfaction of the court, “after a rigorous analysis,” that they comply with Rule 23—that is, that “there are in fact sufficiently numerous parties, common questions of law or fact, etc.”  Wal-Mart Stores Inc. v. Dukes, 564 U.S. 338, 350-51 (2011) (internal quote omitted).  One of the findings required by Rule 23 is that common issues predominate, as discussed in last month’s blog post by Travis Hinman.  Predominance as to damages requires a showing that the members of a proposed class were ...