Apr 9 , Brief of respondents Caroline Behrend, et al. in opposition filed. Apr 24 , DISTRIBUTED for Conference of May 10, In Comcast Corp. et. al. v. Behrend, et. al., the Supreme Court of the United States, in a decision written by Justice Antonin Scalia. Co-author, What The Supreme Court’s Decision in Comcast v. Behrend Means for ERISA Class Certification, ABA Employee Benefits Committee Newsletter.

Author: Tulabar Fegar
Country: French Guiana
Language: English (Spanish)
Genre: History
Published (Last): 8 March 2011
Pages: 427
PDF File Size: 8.85 Mb
ePub File Size: 17.64 Mb
ISBN: 638-8-64612-449-8
Downloads: 89177
Price: Free* [*Free Regsitration Required]
Uploader: Mezishicage

James McClave the McClave modelprovided an adequate methodology to measure damages on a classwide basis. Is foreclosure debt collection? Finally, Respondents argue that the writ of certiorari should not have been granted in the first place.

Failure to object to the admissibility of evidence normally results in the forfeiture of that claim on appeal. Applicability of Daubert at Class Certification–Probably Yes–and Scrutinize the Evidence Carefully It was widely thought that the Court would use Comcast to decide the standard for the admissibility of an expert’s opinion at the class-certification stage and, in particular, whether Daubert v.

Comcast Corp. v. Behrend – Wikipedia

That question remains open in light of Wal-Martin which Justice Scalia strongly suggested that Daubert is the appropriate standard at class certification. The decision will likely significantly impact the ability of plaintiffs to certify as a class under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23, and it may also affect underlying commercial conduct, such as the future use of territory-swapping and clustering agreements.

The majority noted that a plaintiff seeking certification of a class bears the burden of satisfying “through evidentiary proof” at least one of the provisions of Rule 23 b and emphasized that the Court has “[r]epeatedly” instructed that district courts may need to look beyond the pleadings in analyzing class-certification motions.

Awarded the American Gavel Award for Distinguished Reporting About the Judiciary to recognize the highest standards of reporting about courts and the justice system. Rather, Respondents would have district courts apply a more flexible standard that takes into account the context of the pretrial certification proceedings.


At trial, Respondents had to prove three elements of their claims: Respondents contend that Comcast failed to preserve these arguments for appeal. Mount Lemmon Fire District v. Harrison Return Mail Inc. State court adoption of Comcast has been slower, with mixed results.

Because of this forfeiture, Respondents argue that the standard of review is altered: Consent to the filing of amicus curiae briefs, in support of either party or of neither party, received from counsel for the respondents.

For ERISA litigants in particular, the task comccast be especially v.behrned against the backdrop of a shifting remedies landscape. As for putative Rule 23 b 3 class actions, which is where the expanded remedies will now more often take us, especially close scrutiny is warranted.

Comcast Corp. v. Behrend

Fourth, and perhaps most importantly, the Court found that questions of individual alleged damages against V.berhend “will inevitably overwhelm questions common to the class. This website may use cookies to improve your experience. Consent to the filing of amicus curiae briefs, in support of either party or of neither party, received from counsel for the petitioners.

Dissent Offers a Limited View of the Majority Opinion Justices Ruth Bader Ginsburg and Stephen Breyer, jointly writing for the dissent, argued that the Court should have dismissed the writ of certiorari as improvidently granted. Comcast petitioned the Supreme Court for commcast writ of certiorari on the class-certification issue, but in the meantime reached a tentative settlement of the entire case with the plaintiffs.

And where damages models are insufficient — because they cannot distinguish between liable misconduct and nonliable market factors, rest on comcaat assumptions or methodology, or are not grounded in facts — federal courts will deny certification.

The time to file the joint appendix and petitioners’ brief on the merits is extended to and including August 17, Under proper standards, cmcast model was inadequate, and the class should not have been certified.


Justices Ruth Bader Ginsburg and Stephen Breyer, jointly writing for the dissent, argued that the Court should have dismissed the writ of certiorari as improvidently granted. Guido New Prime Inc. Bethune-Hill Virginia Uranium, Inc. Insix Comcast customers brought a class-action antitrust lawsuit in the United States District V.beyrend for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania against the company, alleging anticompetitive and monopolistic conduct in violation of Sections 1 and 2 of the Sherman Act.

Turning to the specific evidence in Comcast, the Court noted that the different damages theories offered by the plaintiffs revealed important differences among class members, that the McClave model failed to account for the damages that allegedly resulted solely from the “overbuilder theory,” and that the Third Circuit had erred in failing to determine whether the plaintiffs’ damages methodology was “just and reasonable” or merely speculative and thus could not satisfy Rule 23 b 3 ‘s predominance requirement.

Although the McClave model did not isolate damages resulting from the overbuilder theory of antitrust impact, the district court certified the class.

Court of Appeals for the 9th Circuit erred in denying the officers qualified immunity by considering clearly established law at too high a level of generality rather than giving particularized consideration to the facts and circumstances of this case; 2 whether the lower court erred in denying the officers qualified immunity by relying on a single decision, published after the event in question, to support v.bejrend conclusion that qualified immunity is not available; and 3 whether the lower court erred in failing or refusing to decide whether the subject arrest was without probable cause or subject to qualified immunity.

Indiana United States v.