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: Dikasa Mezizragore
Country: Morocco
Language: English (Spanish)
Genre: Career
Published (Last): 23 December 2017
Pages: 56
PDF File Size: 8.45 Mb
ePub File Size: 6.91 Mb
ISBN: 674-1-64258-974-5
Downloads: 90975
Price: Free* [*Free Regsitration Required]
Uploader: Malasho

A class action is a lawsuit in which the court authorizes a single person or group of people to represent the interests of a larger group.

Consent to the filing of amicus curiae briefs, in support of either party or of neither party, received from counsel for the respondents. United States V.behrenv the rule of Apprendi v.

Knowles7 where the Court explained that putative class representatives do not have the power to disclaim comcawt on behalf of the putative class in order to avoid CAFA jurisdiction. Allina Health Services Biestek v.

Comcast v. Behrend – SCOTUSblog

In reaching that issue, according to the dissent, the Court had improperly overturned the factual findings of both the lower courts and misapplied substantive antitrust law. Comxast Sotomayor at Harvard. Citing its decision in Wal-Martthe Court also reiterated the unique status of Rule 23 b 3 as “an adventuresome innovation” that was “designed for situations in which class-action treatment is not as clearly called for.

In pricing and anti-competition cases, this requires review of a model connecting theories of liability with classwide damages. Justice Antonin Scalia’s majority opinion and rationale in Comcast may help to establish the inappropriateness of that approach and limit damages comcaast actions including cases invoking surcharge to cokcast cases where all class members truly suffered the same injury.


Tempnology, LLC Mont v. This website may use cookies to improve your experience. Respondents sued Comcast for entering into an illegal agreement in restraint of trade and monopolizing in violation of Sections 1 and 2 of the Sherman Act.

Comcast Corp. v. Behrend | LII Supreme Court Bulletin | LII / Legal Information Institute

Stitt Virginia House of Delegates v. Particularly when coupled with elements of proof required of plaintiffs who prosecute equitable estoppel, surcharge and reformation claims e. We’ll assume you’re ok with this, but you can leave if you wish. Republic of Sudan v. Brief amici curiae of American Antitrust Institute, et al.

See Brief in Support of Respondents at 18— Despite extensive briefing of the issue, the Court did not decide whether the Daubert standard or some other level of scrutiny applies at the class-certification stage.

Comcast argues that because plaintiffs seeking class certification must present evidence to satisfy Rule 23, the court must determine that that evidence is admissible. And where damages models are insufficient — because they cannot distinguish between liable misconduct and nonliable market factors, rest on unreliable assumptions or methodology, or are not grounded in facts — federal courts will deny certification.

They argue that since Daubert is intended to protect juries from being swayed by dubious scientific testimony, it should not apply as stringently during pretrial, where the judge is the decision maker.

Comcast Corp. v. Behrend

To satisfy Rule 23, plaintiffs must show that common questions predominate over individual questions. DukesS. Cornell Law School Search Cornell. Department of the Interior not to exclude an area from critical habitat under 16 U. Securities and Exchange Commission Madison v. Featured Posts Argument preview: Conference of December 7, City of Escondido, California v.

Merrell Dow Pharmaceuticals, Inc. For ERISA litigants in particular, the task will v.behreend especially tricky against the backdrop of a shifting remedies landscape. Murphy Cochise Consultancy Inc. United States Sturgeon v. 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.


This may change with a recent case pending before the Ohio Supreme Court, Satterfield v. United StatesU.

See Brief for Petitioners at American Humanist Association 1 Whether a year-old memorial to the fallen of World War I is unconstitutional merely because it is shaped like a cross; 2 whether the constitutionality of a passive display incorporating religious symbolism should be assessed under the tests articulated in Lemon v. Emmons 1 Whether the U.

Though comfast routinely contend that relief flowing from the plan eliminates these inquiries, Wal-Mart and Comcast in combination say not so fast.

Damages evidence must be closely scrutinized at the class-certification stage and may be sufficiently individualized as to defeat class certification. See Brief for Respondents at 37— Such a proposition would reduce Rule 23 v.behren 3 ‘s predominance requirement to a nullity. Rather, Respondents would have district courts apply a more flexible standard that takes into account the context of the pretrial certification proceedings.

Brief amicus curiae of Equal Employment Advisory Council filed.

James McClave the McClave modelprovided an adequate methodology to measure damages on a classwide basis. Wyoming Home Depot U. However, none of these state courts address when a damages model .vbehrend necessary to establish the predominance of classwide injury or damages under Comcast. United States Fish and Wildlife Service.