Term: 2012
Docket: 11-864
Comcast Corporation, Et Al., Petitioners v. Caroline Behrend Et Al.
- Pro
11-864 COMCAST CORP. V. BEHREND DECISION BELOW: 655 F.3d 182 Granted limited to the following question: “Whether a district court may certify a class action without resolving whether the plaintiff class has introduced admissible evidence, including expert testimony, to show that the case is susceptible to awarding damages on a class-wide basis.” CERT. GRANTED 6/25/2012 QUESTION PRESENTED: This Court recently reiterated that district courts must engage in a "'rigorous analysis'" to ensure that the "party seeking class certification [can] affirmatively demonstrate his compliance" with Rule 23. Wal-Mart Stores, Inc. v. Dukes, 131 S. Ct. 2541, 2551 (2011) (quoting Gen. Tel. Co. of Sw. v. Falcon, 457 U.S. 147, 161 (1982)). Disavowing an allegedly contrary suggestion in Eisen v. Carlisle & Jacquelin, 417 U.S. 156 (1974), Dukes emphasized that district courts are required to resolve any "merits question[s]" bearing on class certification, even if the plaintiffs "will surely have to prove [those issues] again at trial in order to make out their case on the merits." 131 S. Ct. at 2552 n.6. In this case, however, the Third Circuit repeatedly invoked the disavowed aspect of Eisen in declining to consider several "merits arguments" directly relevant to the certification analysis. The question presented is whether a district court may certify a class action without resolving "merits arguments" that bear on Rule 23's prerequisites for certification, including whether purportedly common issues predominate over individual ones under Rule 23(b)(3). LOWER COURT CASE NUMBER: 10-2865
In the case of Comcast Corporation v. Caroline Behrend et al., 2012, a group of cable television subscribers in Philadelphia led by Caroline Behrend sued Comcast for allegedly violating antitrust laws and overcharging customers. The plaintiffs sought to certify their lawsuit as a class action on behalf of roughly two million current and former Comcast subscribers in the region. However, the Supreme Court ruled against them in a 5-4 decision stating that they could not sue as a class because they had failed to provide sufficient evidence that damages could be calculated on a class-wide basis. This ruling made it more difficult for potential classes to gain certification before any actual damages are proven or quantified.
In the dissenting opinion for Comcast Corporation v. Caroline Behrend et al., Justice Ginsburg, joined by Justice Breyer, argued that the majority had overstepped its bounds in reviewing and rejecting a lower court's decision to certify a class action lawsuit against Comcast. They contended that this case should not have been reviewed because it did not present an opportunity to clarify any unsettled question of law; instead, they believed the Court was simply second-guessing factual findings made by lower courts. The dissenters also disagreed with the majority's conclusion that plaintiffs must provide admissible evidence proving damages can be measured on a class-wide basis before certification is granted. According to them, such proof is only necessary at trial or when awarding damages—not during certification stage—and requiring it earlier would place an undue burden on plaintiffs seeking redress through collective legal action.
