Appellate Law NJ Blog
  • Home
  • Bruce Greenberg

No En Banc Review or Rehearing in Carrera v. Bayer

Posted by Bruce D. Greenberg on May 5, 2014 in Class actions, Consumer protection, Third Circuit Court of Appeals | 0 comments

Carrera v. Bayer Corp., 727 F.3d 300 (3d Cir. 2013), severely restricted class certification in cases that involve products of whose purchasers selling defendants do not keep records.  That is the case with many consumer goods that are sold at retail, such as the Bayer multi-vitamin dietary supplement that is the subject of this case.  The discussion of Carrera here urged that either a panel rehearing or en banc review be granted and the panel decision undone.  Plaintiff did seek rehearing and en banc review.  [Disclosure:  Plaintiff’s petition in that regard cited this blog’s discussion of the panel opinion, as noted here, and Bayer’s responding brief did so as well.]

Last Friday, the Third Circuit denied plaintiff’s request.  The court’s ruling is available here.  However, four very experienced judges (Chief Judge McKee and Judges Rendell, Ambro, and Fuentes) would have granted review.

Judge Ambro, the author of Marcus v. BMW of North America, LLC, 687 F.3d 583 (3d Cir. 2012), the case that began the court’s mistaken trend regarding ascertainability of classes that culminated in Carrera, wrote an opinion for those four judges.  He stated that though ascertainability is necessary for Rule 23 to work, “how far we go in requiring plaintiffs to prove that ability at the outset is exceptionally important and requires a delicate balancing of interests.  It merits not only en banc review by our Court but also review by the Judicial Conference’s Committee on Rules of Practice and Procedure.”  Judge Ambro rightly asserted that the panel opinion “goes too far” in having found an abuse of discretion by the district judge on the ascertainability issue.  “Rule 23’s implied requirement of ascertainability is judicially created.  Because it is a creature of common law, I believe that we should be flexible with its application, especially in instances where the defendant’s actions cause the difficulty.  Where, as here, a defendant’s lack of records and business practices make it more difficult to ascertain the members of an otherwise objectively verifiable low-value class, the consumers who make up that class should not be made to suffer.  The consequence of a step too far is the curtailment of well-intentioned class actions with many members yet all with claims too minimal to be asserted individually.”

Judge Ambro’s opinion is entirely consistent with the fundamental purposes of the class action procedure, purposes that many courts (sometimes even including the Third Circuit) have not sufficiently accounted for in recent years.  The brief statement of Judges Smith, Chagares, and Scirical, the judges who constituted the panel in Carrera, in support of the denial of review does virtually nothing to rebut Judge Ambro’s compelling analysis of the issues.

No Responses to “No En Banc Review or Rehearing in Carrera v. Bayer”

Trackbacks/Pingbacks

  1. “No En Banc Review or Rehearing in Carrera v. Bayer” | Internet Tax Lawyers - […] En Banc Review or Rehearing in Carrera v. Bayer“: Bruce D. Greenberg has this post today at his blog,…
  2. - Appellate Law NJ Blog - […] along with the dissenting opinion of Judge Ambro and others from the denial of en banc review in Carrera…
  3. - Appellate Law NJ Blog - […] readers of this blog have seen frequent criticism of the class action “ascertainability” doctrine espoused by Carrera v. Bayer…
  4. - Appellate Law NJ Blog - […] other courts rejected Carrera, and the fact that four experienced Third Circuit judges issued a compelling dissent from the denial of en…
  5. - Appellate Law NJ Blog - […] been a bugaboo in the Third Circuit for the past several years, as discussed (among other places) here.  In…
  6. A Retreat From the Third Circuit's Misguided Class Action Ascertainability Doctrine, and a Wise Concurrence by Judge Fuentes - Appellate Law NJ Blog - […] Fuentes was one of those who dissented from the denial of en banc review in Carrera, as discussed here.…

Leave a Reply Cancel reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

About the Author

Bruce D. Greenberg, a partner of Lite DePalma Greenberg & Afanador, LLC, has more than 35 years of appellate experience.  He has argued dozens of cases in New Jersey’s Appellate Division, and he has handled oral arguments in the Supreme Court of New Jersey and the Third Circuit Court of Appeals as well.  Mr. Greenberg’s appellate cases have ranged from . . more

 

Subscribe

  • reader reader
  • Subscribe to Appellate Law NJ Blog by Email

Archives

Links

  • An Appeal to Reason – California Appellate blog
  • Class Action Blawg
  • De Novo- Virginia Appellate Law blog
  • Florida Appellate Review
  • How Appealing
  • Maine Appeals Blog
  • New York Appellate Law blog
  • NJ Judiciary
  • On Brief – Iowa Appellate Law Blog
  • Third Circuit Blog
  • Third Circuit Court of Appeals

Categories

  • Administrative agency actions
  • Administrative matters
  • Appellate Division
  • Attorneys fees
  • Case management
  • Chancery issues
  • Class actions
  • Constitutional law
  • Consumer protection
  • Contract interpretation
  • Criminal law
  • Discovery
  • Effect of decisions by other courts
  • Judges
  • Jury issues
  • Municipal land use
  • Notable opinion writing
  • Pleadings
  • Practice Pointers
  • Standards of review
  • Statutory interpretation
  • Summary judgment
  • Supreme Court of New Jersey
  • Third Circuit Court of Appeals
  • Uncategorized
  • United States Supreme Court

Tags

Administrative agency actions Arbitration Briefs Chief Justice Stuart Rabner Court Rules Family Part interlocutory vs. final decisions Judge Allison Accurso Judge Anthony Parrillo Judge Carmen Alvarez Judge Carmen Messano Judge Clarkson Fisher Judge D. Brooks Smith Judge Douglas Fasciale Judge Ellen Koblitz Judge Heidi Willis Currier Judge Jack Sabatino Judge Jose Fuentes Judge Julio Fuentes Judge Kent Jordan Judge Marianne Espinosa Judge Marie Lihotz Judge Mary Catherine Cuff Judge Michael Haas Judge Mitchel Ostrer Judge Stephen Skillman Judge Susan Reisner Judge Thomas Ambro Judge Thomas Hardiman Judge Victor Ashrafi Justice Anne Patterson Justice Barry Albin Justice Fabiana Pierre-Louis Justice Faustino Fernandez-Vina Justice Helen Hoens Justice Jaynee LaVecchia Justice Lee Solomon Justice Walter Timpone Law of the case Makeup of court Notice of appeal Prerogative writ appeals Standing Statute of limitations Waiver

Designed by Elegant Themes | Powered by Wordpress