Classified Class Action Blog

  • All Topics
  • Contributors
  • About
  • Contact
  • Subscribe

Enough is Enough: The Limits of Invoking Rule 23(c)(1)(C)

September 25, 2018 by Joseph H. Lang, Jr.

On September 4, Judge Rogers of the Northern District of California granted defendants’ motion to strike plaintiffs’ second renewed motion for class certification. The motion was filed by indirect purchaser plaintiffs in this lithium ion batteries antitrust litigation. The “second renewed motion,” which was in fact a third motion for class certification, cited Rule 23(c)(1)(C) as authority. Plaintiffs did not seek leave to file this third motion.

In striking the motion, the district court relied heavily upon the importance of adhering to scheduling orders. Although a second motion for class certification was accepted by the district court, the court anticipated that that motion would be the final such certification motion. “While the Court’s scheduling order was silent as to the filing of a third class certification motion, the  entire case plan depended upon class certification being settled once the Court issued its decision on the second class certification motion.” “Scheduling orders, and the parties’ adherence to those orders, have special importance in multi-district litigation, as here.”

Rule 23(c)(1)(C) provides that “[a]n order that grants or denies class certification may be altered or amended before final judgment.” But the district court did not allow that rule to sanction complete disregard of scheduling orders: “In the context of multi-district litigation such as this, it would set a dangerous precedent to permit filing of renewed motions for class certification (or decertification) wholly outside the court’s scheduling order and careful management of the actions, and without any request or justification for seeking leave to do so.”

In re Lithium Ion Batteries Antitrust Litigation, No. 13-MD-02420 YGR, 2018 WL 4215573 (N.D. Cal. Sept. 4, 2018)

Print Friendly, PDF & Email

« Previous Article

Class Certification Denied in ‘Junk Fax’ Case in Electronic Age

Next Article »

Tenth Circuit Finds Plaintiffs’ Settle and Dismiss Strategy Unappealing
Joseph H. Lang, Jr.

About Joseph H. Lang, Jr.

Joseph H. Lang Jr. is a shareholder at Carlton Fields in Tampa, Florida.

Get Weekly Updates!

2020 Class Action Survey – Now Available!

DOWNLOAD NOW
Carlton Fields Logo A blog focused on the latest class action developments and trends by the attorneys of Carlton Fields.

Search

Topics

Industries/Practices
  • Construction
  • Consumer Finance & Banking
  • Food & Beverage
  • Health Care
  • Insurance
  • Labor, Employment & ERISA
  • Manufacturing & Products
  • Pharmaceutical
  • Privacy & Technology
  • Securities
  • Telecommunications

Substantive/Procedural
  • Arbitration
  • CAFA
  • Certification
    • Adequacy
    • Ascertainability
    • Commonality
    • Numerosity
    • Predominance
    • Superiority
    • Typicality
  • Decertification
  • Settlements
  • Standing
  • Striking of Class Allegations

Courts/Jurisdiction
  • Federal District Courts
  • Federal Circuit Courts of Appeal
  • United States Supreme Court
  • State Courts

Monthly Archives

Recent Articles

  • MDL Court Denies Class Certification of Proposed “NAS Babies” Class
  • What’s Good for Trial Is Good for Class Certification: Fifth Circuit Rules That Daubert Applies at Class Certification Stage
  • One Game, One Stadium: Eleventh Circuit Spikes Collateral Challenge to Tampa Bay Buccaneers Proposed Class Action Settlement

Get Weekly Updates!

Carlton Fields

  • carltonfields.com
  • Practices
  • Industries
  • Class Action Survey

Related Industries/Practices

  • National Class Actions
  • National Trial Practice
  • Appellate & Trial Support
  • Our Class Action Experience

Classified: The Class Action Blog

  • All Topics
  • Contributors
  • About
  • Contact

Classified Logo
© 2014–2021 Carlton Fields, P.A. · Carlton Fields practices law in California as Carlton Fields, LLP · All Rights Reserved · Privacy Policy · Disclaimer

Carlton Fields publications should not be construed as legal advice on any specific facts or circumstances. The contents are intended for general information and educational purposes only, and should not be relied on as if it were advice about a particular fact situation. The distribution of this publication is not intended to create, and receipt of it does not constitute, an attorney-client relationship with Carlton Fields. This publication may not be quoted or referred to in any other publication or proceeding without the prior written consent of the firm, to be given or withheld at our discretion. To request reprint permission for any of our publications, please contact us. The views set forth herein are the personal views of the author and do not necessarily reflect those of the firm. This site may contain hypertext links to information created and maintained by other entities. Carlton Fields does not control or guarantee the accuracy or completeness of this outside information, nor is the inclusion of a link to be intended as an endorsement of those outside sites. This site may be considered attorney advertising in some jurisdictions.