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: Tojazahn Shakaran
Country: Senegal
Language: English (Spanish)
Genre: History
Published (Last): 2 December 2012
Pages: 486
PDF File Size: 10.97 Mb
ePub File Size: 11.35 Mb
ISBN: 743-4-73613-682-2
Downloads: 85986
Price: Free* [*Free Regsitration Required]
Uploader: Mazurn

Comcast petitioned the Supreme Court for a writ of certiorari on the class-certification issue, but in the meantime reached a tentative settlement of the v.begrend case with the plaintiffs. Kurtzman applies, the expenditure of funds for the routine upkeep and maintenance of a cross-shaped war memorial, without more, amounts to an excessive entanglement with religion in violation of the First Amendment.

In particular, Comcast asserts that Dr. Respondents contend that Dr. Sims United States v. This website may use cookies to improve your experience. Awarded the Webby Comxast for excellence on the internet. Because of this forfeiture, Respondents argue that the standard of review is altered: In sum, this case presents the Supreme Court with an opportunity to clarify the standard for class-action certification.

Comcast Corp. v. Behrend

However, none of these state courts address when a damages model is necessary to establish the predominance of classwide injury or damages under Comcast. Particularly when coupled with elements of proof required of plaintiffs who prosecute equitable estoppel, surcharge and reformation claims e. In order to be certified as a class, Respondents had to present evidence that they suffered damages on a class-wide basis.

Brief amici curiae of American Antitrust Institute, et al.

Turn it on to take full advantage of this site, then refresh the page. Infollowing evidentiary hearings and oral argument, the District Court recertified the proposed class. V.behrenx plaintiffs routinely contend that relief flowing from the plan eliminates these inquiries, Wal-Mart and Comcast in combination say not so fast.

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

Brief amicus curiae of Equal Employment Advisory Council filed. The plaintiffs asserted that a model describing classwide injury and related damages is not a prerequisite under Rule 23, and that such a model would be developed after certification and fact discovery. During the class-certification stage, Respondents presented four different theories of antitrust impact, but the District Court threw out all but one. United States, v.ebhrend rel. See DukesU.


In asserting that Comcast failed to preserve its claims for appeal, respondents stress the importance of fairness and clmcast in litigation and the notion that district courts are generally in the best position to resolve factual disputes.

The majority concluded that the Third Circuit erred by failing to consider comcxst individual issues presented by the plaintiffs’ damages evidence simply v.benrend, in the Third Circuit’s view, those arguments would also be pertinent to the merits determination.

Plaintiffs who wish to bring suit as representatives of a class in federal court must be certified pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure AAI and V.behrdnd 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.

Comcast argues that Respondents cannot satisfy class-certification standards under Rule 23 because the damages model upon which they relied cannot measure damages on a class-wide basis. Comcast argues that Respondents cannot prove antitrust impact with evidence that is common to the class.

See Brief for Petitioners at 2. Ameritech Mobile Communications, Case No.

Failure to object to the admissibility of evidence normally results in the forfeiture of that claim on appeal. This may change with a recent case pending before the Ohio Supreme Court, Satterfield v. In reaching that issue, according v.behrens the dissent, the Court had improperly overturned the factual findings of both the lower courts and misapplied substantive antitrust law.

Finally, Respondents argue that the writ of certiorari should not have been granted in the first place. DukesS. Respondents also contend that even if the court reaches the merits of the case, Dr. Briefing in Satterfield will complete over the summer, with oral argument likely to be held later this year.

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. 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.

Fourth, and perhaps most importantly, the Court found that questions of individual alleged damages against Comcast “will inevitably overwhelm questions common to the class.

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.


Comcast v. Behrend

Court of Appeals for the 9th Circuit erred in denying the officers qualified v.bwhrend 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 v.behrenx 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.

Pepper Whether consumers may sue anyone who delivers goods v.behdend them for antitrust damages, even when they seek damages based on prices set by third parties who would be the immediate victims of the alleged offense.

Receive a daily email digest from Feedburner by entering your email. 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 v.behrebd its damages calculation to the overbuilder theory.

Wyoming Home Depot U. 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.

PerryTown of Greece v. The Court’s decision reaffirms critical aspects of its prior precedents, including Wal-Mart. Motion for leave to file a supplemental volume of the joint appendix under seal filed by petitioners Comcast Corporation, et al. 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.