Classified Class Action Blog

  • All Topics
  • Contributors
  • About
  • Contact
  • Subscribe

Northern District of California Grants Certification of Antitrust Class in 15 of 16 Jurisdictions Pursuant to Dukes and Comcast; Declines to Certify One Class Due to Lack of Class Representative

October 3, 2014 by Carlton Fields

In a recent case in the United States District Court for the Northern District of California, plaintiffs brought a putative class action against various defendants involved in milk production, alleging they violated the antitrust laws of fifteen states and Washington, D.C. by engaging in a conspiracy to limit the production and  increase the price of raw milk. Plaintiffs sought class certification in each of the sixteen jurisdictions; the Northern District granted the motion in all but one state, where certification failed for lack of standing.

As a threshold matter, the court held that plaintiffs had demonstrated the class was ascertainable, as its definition included descriptions of the offending products and the eligible dates of purchase, which would enable individuals to determine if they were class members. With regard to standing, the court noted that a class representative must have personally suffered an injury and at least one plaintiff must have standing to bring each claim alleged. On that basis, the court denied certification of the West Virginia class due to its lack of a class representative.

The court next addressed Rule 23(a), explaining that, pursuant to the Supreme Court’s decision in Wal-Mart Stores, Inc. v. Dukes, a court must examine the merits of a plaintiff’s claim to determine if common questions exist, but cautioned against turning certification into a “mini-trial.” The court found that plaintiffs had satisfied numerosity and adequacy and noted that typicality had not been challenged. Additionally, the issue of whether defendants had violated state antitrust laws was a common question sufficient to satisfy commonality, as even one common question is enough under Dukes. The court also held that plaintiffs had shown damages could be calculated on a classwide basis, as they need not be exact in an antitrust case and the omission of any relevant factors by plaintiffs’ expert went to the weight rather than the admissibility of the evidence.

Defendants next argued that plaintiffs’ damages were not linked to their theory of liability as required by the Supreme Court  in Comcast Corp. v. Behrend. The court disagreed, however; because plaintiffs were alleging a nationwide conspiracy, and because the laws of the individual states allowed recovery for such a conspiracy, the Comcast requirement was met. The court also rejected defendants’ argument that it was a violation of the Commerce Clause for plaintiffs to seek antitrust damages for conduct occurring in non-class action states. Thus, the court found that plaintiffs had satisfied predominance and superiority under Rule 23(b)(3) and granted plaintiff’s motion for class certification with respect to all states but West Virginia.

Edwards v. Nat’l Milk Producers Fed’n, No. C 11-04766 (N.D. Cal. Sept. 16, 2014).

Print Friendly, PDF & Email

« Previous Article

District Court Certifies TCPA Class Over Objections to Adequacy of Named Plaintiff and Individualized Issues of Consent

Next Article »

American Pipe Tolling Inapplicable In Texas Negligent Misstatement Case
Avatar

About Carlton Fields

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.