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
14ComcastContinuedfromPage13WiththeintersectionofDukeswhichdidconsid-erRule23a2theBehrenddecisionandnowthegrantvacateremandofRBSitappearsthatthedissentmaybecorrectthattheBehrenddeci-sionbrokenonewgroundbutthedissentisincor-recttoassumetheBehrendanalysiswouldbelim-itedtosimplythecaseatissue.TakeawayTheBehrenddecisionwilllikelyincreasethenumberofDaubertchallengestoexpertreportsattheclasscertificationstage.ThiswillnotbeachangeinjurisdictionssuchastheFifthCircuitandtheSeventhCircuitwherechallengestoex-perttestimonydeemedcriticaltoclasscertifica-tionisalreadyroutinelysubjecttoDaubertanaly-sis.31IntheendtheCourtreaffirmedtherigorousanalysisstandardfromDukeswhichwillcontin-uetomandatedistrictcourtstolookbeyondthepleadingstoresolvetheclasscertificationrequire-mentsevenifsuchanalysisoverlapswiththemeritsoftheunderlyingcase.TheBehrendcasealsosuggeststhatplaintiffsinputativeclassactionsuitsmayneedtotietheirdamagesmodelstotheirspecifictheoryofliabilityinordertocertifyaclass.Defendantsopposingclasscertificationshouldchallengedamagesmodelsthatdonotcor-relatewiththeplaintiffstheoryofliability.MoregenerallytheBehrenddecisionre-affirmswhatalllitigantsknowClasscertificationwillremainamajorbattlegroundinclassactionlaw-suits.Inanycaseinvolvingindividualizeddeter-minationsofdamagesdefendantswouldbewelladvisedtoarguethatdamagescannotbeestab-lishedonaclass-widebasisaspartoftheirpre-dominancechallengetoclasscertification.______________________________________KennethG.ParkerisapartnerintheOrangeCountyofficeofHaynesandBooneLLP.WilliamONeillisanassociateintheOrangeCountyofficeofHaynesandBooneLLP.1133S.Ct.1426March272013.2131S.Ct.254120113131S.Ct.25412553-54.4Ellisv.CostcoWholesaleCorp.657F.3d9709thCir.20115InreZurnPexPlumbingProd.Liab.Litig.644F.3d604612-148thCir.2011.6133S.Ct.14261432.7Id.atp.1430.8Id.atp.1430-31.9Id.10Id.11Id.12Id.13Id.14Id.15Id.16655F.3d182215n.183rd.Cir.2011.17567U.S.at133S.Ct.242012.ThisisadifferentquestionthantheoneputforthinComcastspetitionWhetheradistrictcourtmaycertifyaclassactionwithoutresolvingmeritsargumentsthatbearonRule23sprereq-uisitesforcertificationincludingwhetherpurportedlycom-monissuespredominateoverindividualonesunderRule23b3.133S.Ct.14261435Ginsbergdissent.18Id.19Id.atp.1429.20Id.atpp.1432-33.21Id.atpp.1430-31.22Id.atp.1433.23Id.24Id.atp.1435GinsburgdissentThiscasecomestotheCourtinfectedbyourmisguidedreformulationoftheques-tionpresented..25Id.atp.1437Ginsburgdissent.26Id.27ClassactionlitigantsarealsodirectedtothesubsequentUnitedStatesSupremeCourtdecisionofGenesisHealthcareCorp.v.Symczyk.133S.Ct.15232013.28Whirlpoolv.GlazerNo.12-322U.S.Apr.12013.29Rossv.RBSCitizensN.A.No.12-165U.S.Apr.32013.302013WL1222646at7emphasisinoriginalquotingFederalJudicialCenterReferenceManualonScientificEvidence4323ded.2011.31Messnerv.NorthshoreUniv.HealthSys.669F.3d8027thCir.2012Ungerv.AmedisysInc.401F.3d316323n.65thCir.2005.