Comcast v. Behrend
|Docket No.||Op. Below||Argument||Opinion||Vote||Author||Term|
Nov 5, 2012
|Mar 27, 2013||5-4||Scalia||OT 2012|
Disclosure: Goldstein & Russell, P.C., whose attorneys work for or contribute to this blog in various capacities, is among the counsel to the respondents in this case.
Holding: The class action brought by respondents, subscribers to the cable television services provided by petitioner, was improperly certified under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23(b)(3), which requires a court to find that the “questions of law or fact common to class members predominate over any questions affecting only individual members,” because the Third Circuit erred in refusing to decide whether the class’s proposed damages model could show damages on a classwide basis. Under proper standards, the model was inadequate, and the class should not have been certified.
Plain English Summary:
Judgment: Reversed, 5-4, in an opinion by Justice Scalia on March 27, 2013.
- Opinion analysis: No common ground (Sergio Campos)
- Argument recap: You say tomato . . . (Sergio Campos)
- Argument preview: An inch, or a mile? (Sergio Campos)
- Petition of the day (Kali Borkoski)