Comcast v. Behrend
| Docket No. | Op. Below | Argument | Opinion | Vote | Author | Term |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 11-864 | 3d Cir. | Nov 5, 2012 | Mar 27, 2013 | 5-4 | Scalia | OT 2012 |
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.
Judgment: Reversed, 5-4, in an opinion by Justice Scalia on March 27, 2013.
SCOTUSblog Coverage
- Opinion analysis: No common ground (Sergio Campos, March 29, 2013)
- Argument recap: You say tomato . . . (Sergio Campos, November 8, 2012)
- Argument preview: An inch, or a mile? (Sergio Campos, November 1, 2012)
- Petition of the day (Kali Borkoski, February 10, 2012)
| Date | Proceedings and Orders |
|---|---|
| 11/30/2011 | Application (11A534) to extend the time to file a petition for a writ of certiorari from December 19, 2011 to January 18, 2012, submitted to Justice Alito. |
| 12/02/2011 | Application (11A534) granted by Justice Alito extending the time to file until January 18, 2012. |
| 01/11/2012 | Petition for a writ of certiorari filed. (Response due February 13, 2012) |
| 02/13/2012 | Waiver of right of respondents Caroline Behrend, et al. to respond filed. |
| 02/29/2012 | DISTRIBUTED for Conference of March 16, 2012. |
| 03/08/2012 | Response Requested . (Due April 9, 2012) |
| 04/09/2012 | Brief of respondents Caroline Behrend, et al. in opposition filed. |
| 04/24/2012 | DISTRIBUTED for Conference of May 10, 2012. |
| 04/24/2012 | Reply of petitioners Comcast Corporation, et al. filed. (Distributed) |
| 05/14/2012 | DISTRIBUTED for Conference of May 17, 2012. |
| 05/21/2012 | DISTRIBUTED for Conference of May 24, 2012. |
| 05/29/2012 | DISTRIBUTED for Conference of May 31, 2012. |
| 06/04/2012 | DISTRIBUTED for Conference of June 7, 2012. |
| 06/11/2012 | DISTRIBUTED for Conference of June 14, 2012. |
| 06/18/2012 | DISTRIBUTED for Conference of June 21, 2012. |
| 06/25/2012 | Petition GRANTED limited to the following Question: "Whether a district court may certify a class action without resolving whether the plaintiff class has introduced admissible evidence, including expert testimony, to show that the case is susceptible to awarding damages on a class-wide basis.". |
| 07/20/2012 | The time to file the joint appendix and petitioners' brief on the merits is extended to and including August 17, 2012. |
| 07/23/2012 | SET FOR ARGUMENT ON Monday, November 5, 2012 |
| 08/06/2012 | Letter from counsel for the respondents received. (Distributed) |
| 08/07/2012 | Consent to the filing of amicus curiae briefs, in support of either party or of neither party, received from counsel for the petitioners. |
| 08/09/2012 | Record received from U.S.C.A. for 3rd Circuit. (1 box). There are sealed documents in this record. |
| 08/14/2012 | Consent to the filing of amicus curiae briefs, in support of either party or of neither party, received from counsel for the respondents. |
| 08/17/2012 | Joint appendix filed (5 Volumes, 2 with motion to seal). (Statement of costs filed) |
| 08/17/2012 | Brief of petitioner Comcast Corporation, et al. filed. |
| 08/17/2012 | Motion to file Volumes Four and Five of the joint appendix under seal filed by petitioners Comcast Corporation, et al. |
| 08/22/2012 | Motion DISTRIBUTED for Conference of September 24, 2012. |
| 08/22/2012 | The time to file respondent's brief on the merits is extended to and including September 25, 2012. |
| 08/24/2012 | Brief amicus curiae of Intel Corporation filed. |
| 08/24/2012 | Brief amicus curiae of Equal Employment Advisory Council filed. |
| 08/24/2012 | Brief amici curiae of Chamber of Commerce of the United States of America, et al. filed. |
| 08/24/2012 | Brief amicus curiae of DRI - The Voice of the Defense Bar filed. |
| 08/24/2012 | Brief amici curiae of Washington Legal Foundation, et al. filed. |
| 08/24/2012 | Brief amicus curiae of Retail Litigation Center, Inc. filed. |
| 08/24/2012 | Brief amicus curiae of Cato Institute filed. |
| 08/24/2012 | Brief amici curiae of Economists in support of neither party filed. |
| 09/04/2012 | Record received from U.S.D.C. for Eastern District of Pennsylvania. (3 boxes) |
| 09/19/2012 | CIRCULATED |
| 09/25/2012 | Brief of respondents Caroline Behrend, et al. filed. (Distributed) |
| 09/26/2012 | Letter of respondents Caroline Behrend, et al. filed. (Distributed) |
| 10/01/2012 | Motion for leave to file Volumes 4 and 5 of the joint appendix under seal GRANTED. |
| 10/02/2012 | Brief amici curiae of American Antitrust Institute, et al. filed. (Distributed) |
| 10/02/2012 | Brief amici curiae of American Association for Justice, Public Justice, P.C., and AARP filed. (Distributed) |
| 10/24/2012 | Reply of petitioners Comcast Corporation, et al. filed. (Distributed) |
| 10/29/2012 | Motion for leave to file a supplemental volume of the joint appendix under seal filed by petitioners Comcast Corporation, et al. (Distributed) |
| 10/29/2012 | Motion DISTRIBUTED for Conference of November 2, 2012. |
| 11/02/2012 | Motion for leave to file a supplemental volume of the joint appendix under seal GRANTED. |
| 11/05/2012 | Argued. For petitioners: Miguel A. Estrada, Washington, D. C. For respondents: Barry Barnett, Dallas, Tex. |
| 03/27/2013 | Judgment REVERSED. Scalia, J., delivered the opinion of the Court, in which Roberts, C.J., and Kennedy, Thomas, and Alito, JJ., joined. Ginsburg and Breyer, JJ., filed a dissenting opinion, in which Sotomayor and Kagan, JJ., joined. |
| 04/29/2013 | JUDGMENT ISSUED. |
| 06/03/2013 | Record returned to U.S.D.C. for Eastern District of Pennsylvania. |
| 06/04/2013 | Record returned to U.S.C.A. for Third Circuit. |
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.
Judgment:”Reversed, 5-4, in an opinion by Justice Scalia on March 27, 2013.