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: Fenrijin Akinoshura
Country: French Guiana
Language: English (Spanish)
Genre: Health and Food
Published (Last): 21 July 2004
Pages: 156
PDF File Size: 5.76 Mb
ePub File Size: 6.21 Mb
ISBN: 531-1-72962-754-4
Downloads: 37342
Price: Free* [*Free Regsitration Required]
Uploader: Gall

Brief of petitioner Comcast Corporation, et al. Brief amicus curiae of Cato Institute filed. Though plaintiffs routinely contend that relief flowing from the plan eliminates these inquiries, Wal-Mart and Comcast in combination say not so fast.

Securities and Exchange Commission Madison v. United StatesU. Specifically, the Court’s opinion underscores that district courts must critically examine damages methodologies to determine whether they are based on just and reasonable inferences and are not merely speculative and that individual issues of damages may require the denial of class certification.

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

In order to be certified as a class, Respondents had to present evidence that they suffered damages on a class-wide basis. A divided Third Circuit affirmed the district court, concluding that Comcast’s “attack[] on the merits of the methodology [had] no place in the class certification inquiry.

Brief amicus curiae of Intel Corporation filed. The district court held that a damages model prepared by the plaintiffs’ expert, Dr. In particular, Comcast asserts that Dr. See Brief for Respondents at Brief amici curiae of American Antitrust Institute, v.bdhrend al. DukesS. To satisfy Rule 23, plaintiffs must show that common questions predominate over individual questions.

Comcast v. Behrend – SCOTUSblog

Applicability of Daubert at Class Certification–Probably Yes–and Scrutinize the Evidence Carefully It comcst 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, comcasg Daubert v. On March 27, in Comcast Corp. If the Court decides to reach the Question Presented, Respondents claim that district courts need not make final rulings on the admissibility of evidence in order to certify a class.


Republic of Sudan v.

Application 11A to extend the time to file a petition for a writ of certiorari from December 19, to January 18,submitted to Justice Alito. 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.

Brief of respondents Caroline Behrend, et al. BehrendS. 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.

The CATO Institute and others in support of Comcast urge a high bar for class certification to prevent prejudice to both defendants and plaintiff class members. Full Calendar Submit Event.

See Brief for RespondentsCaroline Behrend et al. During the class-certification stage, Respondents presented four different theories of antitrust impact, but the District Court threw out all but one. The Court found that, according to the Third Circuit’s erroneous logic, “any method of measurement is acceptable as long as it could be applied classwide, no matter how arbitrary the measurements may be. The Court also built upon its prior decision in Wal-Martnoting that the “same analytical principles” are not only applicable in damages class actions, but also that “Rule 23 b 3 ‘s predominance criterion is even more demanding than Rule 23 a.

Comcast argues that Respondents cannot prove antitrust impact with evidence that is common to the class. Application 11A granted by Justice Alito extending the time to file until January 18, United States Helsinn Healthcare S. The plaintiffs sought certification of a purported class of two million current and former Comcast subscribers under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23 b 3which requires among other things that “questions of law or fact common to class members predominate over any questions affecting only individual members[.

  ISO 13919-1 PDF

Comcast Corp. v. Behrend

Damages evidence must be closely scrutinized at the class-certification stage and may be sufficiently individualized as to defeat class certification. First, Comcast argues that the model measured the economic impact of the alleged anticompetitive activity against benchmark markets that were not similar enough to the markets in which the alleged anticompetitive activity took place.

Justices Ruth Bader Ginsburg and Stephen Breyer, cpmcast writing for the dissent, argued that the Court should vbehrend dismissed the writ of certiorari as improvidently granted.

BehrendU. Merrell Dow Pharmaceuticals, Comfast. WindsorU. 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.

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.