4 Takeaways From 3rd Circ. Classwide Antitrust Injury Ruling
With increasing frequency, district and circuit courts across the country are grappling with whether class certification is appropriate when the proposed class contains — or may contain — uninjured persons or entities.
In just the past year and a half, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the First Circuit and the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit have both weighed in, with each court finding class certification impermissible given the presence of a more than a de minimis number of uninjured class members.
With its April 22 decision vacating class certification in the In re: Lamictal Direct Purchaser Antitrust Litigation, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit has now added its voice to this important discussion. Like these other circuits, the Third Circuit has now stated unequivocally that “every plaintiff must be able to show antitrust injury,” and that such injury must be shown through evidence that is common to the class.
Alden Atkins, Lindsey Vaala and Morgan Kelley discuss Lamictal and its important implications for parties litigating the predominance requirement under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23(b)(3) in district court. Read entire article here.
This information is provided by Vinson & Elkins LLP for educational and informational purposes only and is not intended, nor should it be construed, as legal advice.