Page 1
Page 2
Page 3
Page 4
Page 5
Page 6
Page 7
Page 8
Page 9
Page 10
Page 11
Page 12
Page 13
Page 14
Page 15
Page 16
Page 17
Page 18
Page 19
Page 20
13ComcastContinuedfromPage8sizedthatcourtsmayneedtolookbeyondthepleadingsbeforeresolvingtheclasscertificationquestion.CitingDukesthemajoritystatedagainthatitmaybenecessaryforcourtstoprobebe-hindthepleadingsbeforecomingtorestonthecertificationquestioninordertosatisfythere-quiredrigorousanalysis.19TheCourtfaultedthelowercourtsforrefusingtoconductthiswork.AstheCourtnotedbyrefusingtoentertainargumentsagainstrespond-entsdamagesmodelthatboreontheproprietyofclasscertificationsimplybecausethoseargu-mentswouldalsobepertinenttothemeritsdeter-minationtheCourtofAppealsranafoulofourprecedentsrequiringpreciselythatinquiry.20TheCourtthenanalyzedtheplaintiffsexpertsdamagesmod-elandfounditwanting.Themodelitselfpurportedtomeasuredamagesfromallfourpotentialtheoriesofantitrustimpact.Butbecauseithedistrictcourtper-mittedplaintiffstoproceedononlyonetheoryandiitheex-pertsreportmadenoattempttoidentifythedamagesattributabletotheoneremainingtheorytheniiitheexpertsmodelcouldnotestablishthattheputativedamagesoftheproposedclassrelatedtothattheoryweresusceptibletoclass-widemeas-urement.21TheCourtexplainedthatatthecertifi-cationstageanymodelsupportingaplaintiffsdamagescasemustbeconsistentwithitsliabilitycase.22Ifthemodelcouldnotmeasurethosedamagesattributabletoaspecifictheorythenthatmodelcouldnotpossiblyestablishthatdam-agesweresusceptibleofmeasurementacrosstheentireclassforpurposesofRule23b3.23Notsurprisinglythedissentdirecteditsinitialcriticismtowardwhatthedissentsawasthema-joritysfailuretoaddressthequestiononwhichcertiorarihadbeengrantedwhetherDaubertap-pliesattheclasscertificationstage.24ThedissentalsotookissuewiththemajoritysholdingthataclasscouldnotbecertifiedgivenPlaintiffsfailuretodemonstratethatdamagescouldbemeasuredonacommonclass-widebasis.Thedissentcontend-edthatrecognitionthatindividualdamagecal-culationsdonotprecludeclasscertificationunderRule23b3iswellnighuniversalwithlegionsofappellatedecisionsacrossarangeofsubstantiveclaims.25Thedissentthenattemptedtolimitthemajoritysholdingbysuggestingthatthemajoritysopinionwasgoodforthisdayandcaseonlyandthatthedecisionbreaksnonewground.26Itislikelythatthedissentsanalysisismorewishfulthinkingthanprecedent-diminishing.ThisisparticularlytruebecausetheCourtspost-BehrendactionsleavelittledoubtthattheBehrendopinionwillitselfechoacrosstheclassactionspectrumratherthanconfineitselfsimplytoanti-trustbehavior.27IndeedtheCourtvacatedandremandedforreconsiderationtwocasesinlightofBehrendwithindaysofitsdecisionincludingaproductsliabilitycase28andawageandhourclassaction.29ThewageandhourcaseRBSisparticularlyinterestingbe-causeatfirstblushitdoesnotappeartoinvolvepreciselythesameissuesBehrendconsidered.IndeedtheRBSmatterconfrontedthelowerhurdleofRule23a2commonalityanddidnotplacedamagesatis-suebutthedefendantsdidargueformoreparticu-larizedclasscertificationssincetheplaintiffsad-vancedfourdifferentliabilitytheoriesaddressingtwodifferentclassesexemptandnon-exempt.SomecourtobserversbelievethattheportionoftheBehrendopinionthatwillmosteffectcaseslikeRBSisthefollowingstatementThefirststepinadamagesstudyisthetranslationofthelegaltheoryoftheharmfuleventintoananalysisoftheeconomicimpactofthatevent.30ItwillbeworthfollowinghowtheRBSdistrictcourtinter-pretsitsrequiredactionsinlightoftheBehrenddecision.ContinuedonPage14TheBehrenddecisionwilllikelyincreasethenumberofDaubertchallengestoexpertreportsattheclasscertificationstage.