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: Mauzahn Daran
Country: Cuba
Language: English (Spanish)
Genre: Automotive
Published (Last): 15 April 2017
Pages: 492
PDF File Size: 7.88 Mb
ePub File Size: 8.55 Mb
ISBN: 239-4-44502-141-7
Downloads: 84133
Price: Free* [*Free Regsitration Required]
Uploader: Mirg

The district court held that a damages model prepared by the plaintiffs’ expert, Dr.

BehrendU. Harrison Return Mail Inc. Respondents contend that Comcast failed to preserve these arguments for appeal. 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 its 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.

State Court Adoption of Comcast v. Behrend | Class Action Lawsuit Defense

Steager Department of Commerce v. That question remains open in light of Wal-Martin which Justice Scalia strongly suggested that Daubert is the appropriate standard at class certification.

Robbins and Bowles v. New Jersey—which held that any fact, other than a prior conviction, that increases the penalty for a crime beyond the prescribed statutory maximum must be submitted to a jury and proven beyond a reasonable doubt—should apply to the imposition of criminal restitution.

Application 11A granted by Justice Alito extending the time to file until January 18, Such a proposition would reduce Rule 23 b 3 ‘s predominance requirement to a nullity. Noted political scientist and Supreme Court scholar — Ronald Collins. WindsorU. Department of Commerce v. If the Ohio Supreme Court adopts ComcastOhio courts will be required to perform rigorous, fact-based scrutiny to confirm that damages issues predominate over individual issues.


See Brief for Respondents at For ERISA litigants in particular, the task will be especially tricky against the backdrop of a shifting remedies landscape. The decision will likely significantly impact the ability of plaintiffs to g.behrend as a class v.bfhrend 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.

See Brief for Petitioners at 2. Respondents also contend that even if the court reaches the merits of the case, Dr. The time to file respondent’s brief on the merits is extended to and including September 25, Response due February 13, Bethune-Hill Virginia Uranium, Inc. Albrecht Mission .vbehrend Holdings Inc. Consequently, Comcast refused to finalize the settlement.

There are sealed documents in this record. District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania accepted only one of the plaintiffs’ four theories–described as the “overbuilder theory”–as capable of classwide proof. In reversing the class certification in Comcast, the Court clarified at least four critical points. Justice Sotomayor at Harvard. Is foreclosure debt collection?

State court adoption of Comcast has been slower, with mixed results. Awarded the American Gavel Award for Distinguished Reporting About the Judiciary to recognize the highest standards of reporting about courts and the justice system.

Comcast Corp. v. Behrend

AAI and AMIBA also argue that raising the bar for class certification would undermine the efficiency and accuracy of important private antitrust enforcement actions and deny plaintiffs their Seventh Amendment right to trial by jury.

Respondents highlight the differences between Daubert analysis during trial and during class certification. 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.

The Court also suggested that even if the plaintiffs had tied their expert damages evidence to the overbuilder theory, differences in the nature and type of damages suffered by members of the class could defeat class certification because class members in different regions within the class may have experienced different alleged harm. Behrend In Comcast v. 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.

Wilkie Whether the Supreme Court should overrule Auer v. Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit refused even to entertain Comcast’s argument that the class was improperly certified because the McClave model failed to tie its damages calculation to the overbuilder theory. 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.


First, the Court emphasized that it may be necessary for the trial court to review the evidence offered by the plaintiffs to determine whether the requirements of the class-certification rule have been satisfied and that it is legal error for a trial court to decline to review that evidence simply because it relates to the merits of the case.

On March 27, in Comcast Corp. Justice Antonin Scalia’s majority opinion and rationale in Comcast may help to establish the inappropriateness of that approach and limit damages class actions including cases invoking surcharge to those cases where all class members truly suffered the same injury.

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

See Brief in Support v.behhrend Respondents at 18— Brief of respondents Caroline Behrend, et al. Comcast’s Background and Summary Subscribers to Comcast’s cable television services brought a class action against the company, alleging that Comcast’s clustering of operations, in violation of federal antitrust laws, eliminated competition and led to non-competitive prices in the Philadelphia region.

With the advent of expanded “equitable” theories of liability in ERISA cases–such as surcharge which is a damages remedy in the hands of the chancellor or misrepresentation claims which require reliance–this is necessary to ensure that .vbehrend those cases that are truly capable of collective resolution will be certified as class actions.

Search Blog or Docket.

The majority also strongly reaffirmed that a district court’s “rigorous analysis” of the Rule 23 factors “will frequently entail ‘overlap with the merits of the plaintiff’s underlying claims.