By: Bryan J. Schwartz and Michael D. Thomas
This morning, the Supreme Court issued its ruling in Comcast v. Behrend. In a 5-4 decision written by Justice Scalia, regarding which the justices split along ideological lines, the Supreme Court’s conservative majority held that the plaintiffs’ class action was improperly certified under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure Rule 23(b)(3).
The practical impact of the Court’s ruling should be limited to antitrust cases and the particular facts of the case, according to the dissent. Written by Justices Ginsburg and Breyer, and joined by Justices Sotomayor and Kagan, the dissent states, “[t]he court’s ruling is good for this day and this case only.” Slip Op., dissent at 5. In particular, the dissent points out that the seemingly sweeping language of the majority requiring that “damages attributable to a classwide injury be measurable ‘on a class-wide basis’” (Slip Op., dissent at p. 3) could not be read as a general holding, since: “the need to prove damages on a classwide basis through a common methodology was never challenged” by the plaintiffs in the case (Slip Op., dissent at p. 5), rendering the majority’s discussions of such to be nothing more than dicta; and “it remains the ‘black letter rule’ that a class may obtain certification under Rule 23(b)(3) when liability questions common to the class predominate over damages questions unique to class members.” Id.
It is a mystery why the Court granted certiorari in the first place or issued any decision ultimately. In particular, the Supreme Court granted review to decide “[w]hether a district court may certify a class action without resolving whether the plaintiff class has introduced admissible evidence…” (Slip Op., dissent at p. 1), though such did not resemble the petitioner’s question presented for review. Then, the justices learned that Comcast had failed in the lower court to raise any evidentiary objections, such that the question of admissible evidence was not properly before the Supreme Court. The majority ultimately decided a totally different question (namely, whether the case was susceptible to awarding damages on a class-wide basis) without briefing by the parties on the issue. Id. at 2.
By way of background, the named plaintiffs in the Comcast antitrust class action claimed that they and other subscribers in the Philadelphia “cluster” were harmed because Comcast’s tactics lessen competition and lead to overpriced services. They sought class certification under Rule 23(b)(3), which requires that “questions of law or fact common to class members predominate over any questions affecting only individual members.”
Plaintiffs originally alleged four types of antitrust impact. The District Court ruled that the plaintiffs could proceed on only one of those theories of liability, called “overbuilding,” regarding how smaller entrants into the market were inhibited based upon Comcast’s anti-competitive behaviors, leading to higher prices. Plaintiffs’ expert prepared a damages model that did not distinguish among the four different types of antitrust impacts, but simply measured the overall effect of Comcast’s practices (an $875M damages estimate from overpriced services). Slip Op., majority at p. 4.The District Court and Third Circuit concluded that it was inappropriate to consider the merits at the Rule 23 stage, but certification was appropriate, because a method of determining class-wide damages existed, meeting the predominance standard.
Writing for the majority, Justice Scalia held that at the class certification stage (as at trial), any model supporting a plaintiff’s damages case must be consistent with the liability case theory, in order to be given weight by the courts. Slip Op., majority at p. 7. See also Slip Op., majority at p. 11 (“’The first step in a damages study is the translation of the legal theory of the harmful event into an analysis of the economic impact of that event.”). The majority emphasized that consideration of the merits is permissible where it overlaps with the Rule 23(b)(3) predominance inquiry. The Court therefore held that because the plaintiffs’ damages model was not specific as to which of the four theories of antitrust liability it relied upon, and because three of the theories had been rejected, plaintiffs’ proposed damages model could not show damages on a class-wide basis. Therefore, the majority found, the class should not have been certified.
The scathing dissent begins: “Today the Court reaches out to decide a case hardly fit for our consideration. On both procedural and substantive grounds, we dissent. This case comes to the Court infected by our misguided reformulation of the question presented. For that reason alone, we would dismiss the writ of certiorari as improvidently granted.” Slip Op., dissent at p. 1.
In addition to the points discussed above, the dissent notes that the Supreme Court’s majority inappropriately fails to defer to the trial court’s factual findings, namely, that striking three of the theories of antitrust liability did not impeach the plaintiffs’ expert’s damages model. Slip Op., dissent at p. 9. Ultimately, the only conclusion that can reasonably be drawn as to why the majority insisted on deciding this case is that the conservative Court is willing to go to great lengths, including considering a case where the writ of certiorari was improvidently granted, in order to deny class certification.
The Comcast v. Behrend case should not change plaintiffs’ arguments, and courts’ analysis, that “when adjudication of questions of liability common to the class will achieve economies of time and expense, the predominance standard is generally satisfied even if damages are not provable in the aggregate.” Slip Op., dissent at p. 4.
Bryan Schwartz and team are stellar professionals. I worked really closely with Renato Flores. He was patient and showed a lot of care and rigor in explaining the ins and out to me and the practical advice he shared was outstanding. Bryan is well connected…
Exceptional people, powerful advocates, tough negotiators. Bryan Schwartz and senior associate Jane Mackie truly care about fairness and justice. Their hard work, attention to detail, and the time and responsiveness they devoted to all my questions let me know in a hundred ways that they…
I cannot say enough GREAT things about Bryan Schwartz Law, P.C. -- and in particular, former paralegal Devin Stuzin. I was recently part of a large class-action settlement -- one the firm tenaciously pursued for a whopping 17 years before getting a record settlement on…
Best people they took my case right a way and fought and win my case best lawyers in bay-area love you all
I was a member of the Doering Meyer class action lawsuit versus the State Department. Bryan Schwartz is a very tenacious and outstanding attorney. When this law firm first contacted me about the case, I was skeptical about their ability to win a case against…
Bryan Schwartz Law, P.C., is a leading employment rights law firm in the United States with a global reach. His is a legal practice of conscientiousness and virtue. Labor law protects a most fundamental right of citizenship and civic engagement. Worker rights are human rights.…
A great team, who kept me informed every step of the way along a many year path to winning a successful class action case.
The staff at this firm are very professional, responsive, friendly, and effective. They persevere for years to get results. I highly recommend them.
Amazing experience with communication and handling of this massive case; I appreciate the help and resolution.
I had a great experience with the firm. They represented me and others in a case that lasted for several years, yet I always knew who to contact and they were always responsive and professional, even as more junior team members transitioned over the years.…
Submit an inquiry to have Bryan Schwartz Law, P.C. evaluate your situation.
*Your submission of an intake request form does not guarantee that Bryan Schwartz Law, P.C. will take your case or provide legal advice. You must be offered and sign a representation agreement with the firm before you will receive any legal advice.
How did we do?
Note: Your review may be shared publicly.