Classified Class Action Blog

  • All Topics
  • Contributors
  • About
  • Contact
  • Subscribe

Supreme Court Won’t Resolve Multi-Circuit Split on Ascertainability Requirement

March 11, 2016 by Carlton Fields

On February 29, the U.S. Supreme Court denied certiorari review in Mullins v. Direct Digital, LLC, No. 15-1776, an ascertainability case we previously covered when it was decided in the Seventh Circuit. In Mullins, a panel of the Seventh Circuit expressly split from decisions in the Third and Eleventh Circuits and held that a class plaintiff is not required to demonstrate the “administrative feasibility” of ascertaining a class.  Instead, the panel applied a weaker standard, holding that ascertainability requires only that a class be “defined clearly and based on objective criteria.” The Sixth Circuit has followed the lead of the Seventh in rejecting another challenge to class certification on ascertainability grounds in Rikos v. Procter & Gamble Co., No. 14-4088 (3d Cir. 2015), a case from which Procter & Gamble filed its own cert. petition in December. That petition remains pending, but with the Supreme Court’s recent refusal to review the Mullins decision, the Circuit split on ascertainability will remain unresolved for now, while the issue continues to percolate in the lower courts.

Print Friendly, PDF & Email

« Previous Article

Move Along; Nothing to See in Ninth Circuit’s TCPA Opinion

Next Article »

Ninth Circuit: Common Issues Do Not Predominate in Mortgage Borrowers’ Action
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.