D.C. Circuit denies class certification where putative antitrust class includes uninjured class members
In a prior post [First Circuit addresses an issue that continues to vex (and split) the circuits: should a class be certified that includes uninjured class members? (October 24, 2018)], we reported on a First Circuit antitrust decision (In re Asacol Antitrust Litigation, 907 F.3d 42 (1st Cir. 2018)) that surveyed the state of the law and ruled that if a class definition includes uninjured class members (or at least class members whose injury cannot be presumed), a class cannot be certified because individual issues will predominate. We now add another federal circuit court of appeals to that list: In re Rail Freight Fuel Surcharge Antitrust Litigation, MDL No. 1869, --- F.3d ---, 2019 WL 3850581 (D.C. Cir., Aug. 16, 2019). That case involved an alleged class of more than 16,000 shippers allegedly injured by a price-fixing conspiracy among the largest freight railroads in the United States. The district court denied class certification because the “regression analysis” performed by the class plaintiffs’ expert witness – which constituted the class members’ class-wide evidence for proving causation, injury, and damages – measured negative or no damages for over 2,000 members of the putative class. 2019 WL 3850581, at *1. Because (among other reasons), over 2,000 class members was not de minimus, the D.C. Circuit affirmed. Id. at *4-6. As with Asacol, the D.C. Circuit’s decision outlines a defense strategy for opposing putative classes that include uninjured members.
While we are pleased to have you contact us by telephone, surface mail, electronic mail, or by facsimile transmission, contacting Kilpatrick Townsend & Stockton LLP or any of its attorneys does not create an attorney-client relationship. The formation of an attorney-client relationship requires consideration of multiple factors, including possible conflicts of interest. An attorney-client relationship is formed only when both you and the Firm have agreed to proceed with a defined engagement.
DO NOT CONVEY TO US ANY INFORMATION YOU REGARD AS CONFIDENTIAL UNTIL A FORMAL CLIENT-ATTORNEY RELATIONSHIP HAS BEEN ESTABLISHED.
If you do convey information, you recognize that we may review and disclose the information, and you agree that even if you regard the information as highly confidential and even if it is transmitted in a good faith effort to retain us, such a review does not preclude us from representing another client directly adverse to you, even in a matter where that information could be used against you.