Hargrove v. Sleepy’s Inc., ___ F.3d ___ (3d Cir. 2020). Readers of this blog know of my distaste (to say the least) for the Third Circuit’s unique interpretation of the idea that a class must be ascertainable in order to be certified. That issue has been discussed, among other places, here, here and here. The Third Circuit has been gradually trimming back its view of ascertainability, and other Circuits, as well as New Jersey’s Appellate Division, have rejected the Third Circuit’s broad view. Yesterday, the Third Circuit took another positive step, holding by a 2-1...

In re Suboxone Antitrust Litig., ___ F.3d ___ (3d Cir. 2020). In this antitrust class action case, direct purchasers of Suboxone, a prescription pharmaceutical used to treat addiction to opioids, sued its manufacturer (“Reckitt”) for what Judge Shwartz summarized as “anticompetitive conduct that impeded the entry of generic versions of the drug into the market,” in violation of section 2 of the Sherman Act, 15 U.S.C. 2. The District Court certified a class. Reckitt appealed, but the Third Circuit affirmed, applying the abuse of discretion standard of review. Reckitt...

Seigelstein v. Shrewsbury Motors, Inc., ___ N.J. Super. ___ (App. Div. 2020). When class action cases settle with a benefit to the class, class counsel, who normally handle those cases on a wholly contingent basis, are entitled to a fee. That fee is paid either as a percentage of the value of the class recovery or is paid by the defendant on top of the settlement for the class, based on either a percentage or on the “lodestar,” which comprises the number of hours reasonably billed multiplied by a reasonable hourly rate. Often, the fee is agreed upon in settlement negotiations....