Categories & Search

Category: Class Certification

“Slack-Fill” Cases Coming Up Empty

Unless you were born yesterday, you know that packaged goods usually contain some empty space in the box, bottle, or bag.  This has been true for as long as there have been packaged goods.  What is relatively new is that consumers—or, rather, a small cadre of specialized plaintiff’s lawyers—are suing over it.  But as Newton said, for every action, there is an equal and opposite reaction.  And the more that lawyers have inundated courts with these suits, the more aggressively courts have responded to shut the silliness down. This post examines the regulatory underpinnings of these so-called “slack-fill” suits and the many bases that courts have found for letting the air out of them.

Go

All’s Not Well(er) in Pennsylvania: Court Sanctions Defendant For Contact With Putative Class Members

There is nothing inherently wrong with outreach to putative members of an uncertified class—whether by the named plaintiff’s counsel or by the defendant’s counsel.  As the ABA has recognized, “[b]oth plaintiffs’ counsel and defense counsel have legitimate need to reach out to potential class members regarding … information that may be relevant to whether or not a class should be certified.”  ABA Formal Op. 07-445 (2007); see also Austen v. Catterton Partners V, LP, 831 F. Supp. 2d 559, 567 (D. Conn. 2011) (“Both parties need to be able to communicate with putative class members … from the earliest stages of class litigation.”).  Thus, as the Supreme Court has unanimously held, restrictions on pre-certification communication with putative class members must be justified by a “clear record and specific findings” of actual “abuses.”  Gulf Oil v. Bernard, 452 U.S. 89, 101-04 (1981).  And even then, any limitations must be “carefully drawn … [to] limit[] speech as little as possible.”  Id.

Go

Class Damages Models After Comcast: Rigorous Proof or Expert’s Promise?

In Comcast v. Behrend, 569 U.S. 27 (2013), the Supreme Court held that a plaintiff cannot obtain class certification with an inadequate damages model.  In the years since, courts have diverged over how much a plaintiff must do to satisfy this requirement.  Often, plaintiffs seek class certification with nothing more than a skeletal proposal to develop and perform an analysis at some future point, using information they do not—and might never—possess.  While some courts have found such adumbrative “models” sufficient at the class certification stage, the better decisions require more.  As Comcast recognizes, Rule 23 “does not set forth a mere pleading standard.”  Rather, a plaintiff “must affirmatively demonstrate” through “evidentiary proof” that damages are measurable on a class-wide basis through a common methodology.  Faithful application of that principle obligates plaintiffs and their experts to offer a detailed methodology that is tailored to the facts of the case, and to show that any data that the model requires in fact exists and can be obtained.

Go

Conjoint Analysis: No Silver Bullet for Calculating Class-Wide Damages

Over the last few years, “conjoint analysis” has become the methodology du jour for false advertising plaintiffs seeking to demonstrate they can calculate class-wide damages.  Conjoint analysis is so named because it is used to study the joint effects of multiple product attributes on consumers’ choices.  At bottom, conjoint analysis uses survey data to measure the strength of consumers’ preferences for particular product features.  Or, put differently, it tries to isolate how much people care about an individual product attribute in a multi-feature product (in a more scientific manner than just asking them directly).

Go