The plaintiffs moved to certify a damages class, asserting four different theories of antitrust injury- i.e., four different theories of how Comcast’s allegedly wrongful conduct affected the prices subscribers paid. 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.Ĭomcast was an antitrust class action involving Comcast cable subscribers in the Philadelphia area.
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. While some courts have found such adumbrative “models” sufficient at the class certification stage, the better decisions require more. 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. In the years since, courts have diverged over how much a plaintiff must do to satisfy this requirement. 27 (2013), the Supreme Court held that a plaintiff cannot obtain class certification with an inadequate damages model.
0 kommentar(er)
