Comcast v. Behrend

Docket No.	Op. Below	Argument	Opinion	Vote	Author	Term
11-864	3d Cir.	Nov 5, 2012 Tr.Aud.	Mar 27, 2013	5-4	Scalia	OT 2012

Disclosure: Goldstein & Russell, P.C., whose attorneys work for or contribute to this blog in various capacities, is among the counsel to the respondents in this case.

Holding: The class action brought by respondents, subscribers to the cable television services provided by petitioner, was improperly certified under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23(b)(3), which requires a court to find that the “questions of law or fact common to class members predominate over any questions affecting only individual members,” because the Third Circuit erred in refusing to decide whether the class’s proposed damages model could show damages on a classwide basis. Under proper standards, the model was inadequate, and the class should not have been certified.

Judgment: Reversed, 5-4, in an opinion by Justice Scalia on March 27, 2013.

SCOTUSblog Coverage

Opinion analysis: No common ground (Sergio Campos)
Argument recap: You say tomato . . . (Sergio Campos)
Argument preview: An inch, or a mile? (Sergio Campos)
Petition of the day (Kali Borkoski)

Date	Proceedings and Orders (key to color coding)
Nov 30 2011	Application (11A534) to extend the time to file a petition for a writ of certiorari from December 19, 2011 to January 18, 2012, submitted to Justice Alito.
Dec 2 2011	Application (11A534) granted by Justice Alito extending the time to file until January 18, 2012.
Jan 11 2012	Petition for a writ of certiorari filed. (Response due February 13, 2012)
Feb 13 2012	Waiver of right of respondents Caroline Behrend, et al. to respond filed.
Feb 29 2012	DISTRIBUTED for Conference of March 16, 2012.
Mar 8 2012	Response Requested . (Due April 9, 2012)
Apr 9 2012	Brief of respondents Caroline Behrend, et al. in opposition filed.
Apr 24 2012	DISTRIBUTED for Conference of May 10, 2012.
Apr 24 2012	Reply of petitioners Comcast Corporation, et al. filed. (Distributed)
May 14 2012	DISTRIBUTED for Conference of May 17, 2012.
May 21 2012	DISTRIBUTED for Conference of May 24, 2012.
May 29 2012	DISTRIBUTED for Conference of May 31, 2012.
Jun 4 2012	DISTRIBUTED for Conference of June 7, 2012.
Jun 11 2012	DISTRIBUTED for Conference of June 14, 2012.
Jun 18 2012	DISTRIBUTED for Conference of June 21, 2012.
Jun 25 2012	Petition GRANTED limited to the following Question: "Whether a district court may certify a class action without resolving whether the plaintiff class has introduced admissible evidence, including expert testimony, to show that the case is susceptible to awarding damages on a class-wide basis.".
Jul 20 2012	The time to file the joint appendix and petitioners' brief on the merits is extended to and including August 17, 2012.
Jul 23 2012	SET FOR ARGUMENT ON Monday, November 5, 2012
Aug 6 2012	Letter from counsel for the respondents received. (Distributed)
Aug 7 2012	Consent to the filing of amicus curiae briefs, in support of either party or of neither party, received from counsel for the petitioners.
Aug 9 2012	Record received from U.S.C.A. for 3rd Circuit. (1 box). There are sealed documents in this record.
Aug 14 2012	Consent to the filing of amicus curiae briefs, in support of either party or of neither party, received from counsel for the respondents.
Aug 17 2012	Joint appendix filed (5 Volumes, 2 with motion to seal). (Statement of costs filed)
Aug 17 2012	Brief of petitioner Comcast Corporation, et al. filed.
Aug 17 2012	Motion to file Volumes Four and Five of the joint appendix under seal filed by petitioners Comcast Corporation, et al.
Aug 22 2012	Motion DISTRIBUTED for Conference of September 24, 2012.
Aug 22 2012	The time to file respondent's brief on the merits is extended to and including September 25, 2012.
Aug 24 2012	Brief amicus curiae of Intel Corporation filed.
Aug 24 2012	Brief amicus curiae of Equal Employment Advisory Council filed.
Aug 24 2012	Brief amici curiae of Chamber of Commerce of the United States of America, et al. filed.
Aug 24 2012	Brief amicus curiae of DRI - The Voice of the Defense Bar filed.
Aug 24 2012	Brief amici curiae of Washington Legal Foundation, et al. filed.
Aug 24 2012	Brief amicus curiae of Retail Litigation Center, Inc. filed.
Aug 24 2012	Brief amicus curiae of Cato Institute filed.
Aug 24 2012	Brief amici curiae of Economists in support of neither party filed.
Sep 4 2012	Record received from U.S.D.C. for Eastern District of Pennsylvania. (3 boxes)
Sep 19 2012	CIRCULATED
Sep 25 2012	Brief of respondents Caroline Behrend, et al. filed. (Distributed)
Sep 26 2012	Letter of respondents Caroline Behrend, et al. filed. (Distributed)
Oct 1 2012	Motion for leave to file Volumes 4 and 5 of the joint appendix under seal GRANTED.
Oct 2 2012	Brief amici curiae of American Antitrust Institute, et al. filed. (Distributed)
Oct 2 2012	Brief amici curiae of American Association for Justice, Public Justice, P.C., and AARP filed. (Distributed)
Oct 24 2012	Reply of petitioners Comcast Corporation, et al. filed. (Distributed)
Oct 29 2012	Motion for leave to file a supplemental volume of the joint appendix under seal filed by petitioners Comcast Corporation, et al. (Distributed)
Oct 29 2012	Motion DISTRIBUTED for Conference of November 2, 2012.
Nov 2 2012	Motion for leave to file a supplemental volume of the joint appendix under seal GRANTED.
Nov 5 2012	Argued. For petitioners: Miguel A. Estrada, Washington, D. C. For respondents: Barry Barnett, Dallas, Tex.
Mar 27 2013	Judgment REVERSED. Scalia, J., delivered the opinion of the Court, in which Roberts, C.J., and Kennedy, Thomas, and Alito, JJ., joined. Ginsburg and Breyer, JJ., filed a dissenting opinion, in which Sotomayor and Kagan, JJ., joined.
Apr 29 2013	JUDGMENT ISSUED.
Jun 3 2013	Record returned to U.S.D.C. for Eastern District of Pennsylvania.
Jun 4 2013	Record returned to U.S.C.A. for Third Circuit.

Featured Posts

Reargument analysis: Justices seek a “middle position” in takings litigation case – Miriam Seifter

Argument analysis: Justices have strong views about removal of class actions – Ronald Mann

Opinion analysis: Interesting 5-4 coalition holds that the ACCA reaches robberies that require force sufficient to overcome resistance (Corrected) – Rory Little
Email Digest Sign-Up
Receive a daily email digest from Feedburner by entering your email.
Merits Case Pages and Archives

Archives

or

This Week at the Court
The Supreme Court released additional orders from the January 11 conference on Monday; the justices called for the views of the U.S. solicitor general in CSX Transportation Inc. v. Alabama Department of Revenue, Alabama Department of Revenue v. CSX Transportation Inc. and Toshiba Corp. v. Automotive Industries Pension Trust Fund.
On Tuesday, the justices released their opinions in New Prime Inc. v. Oliveira and Stokeling v. United States.
On Monday, the justices heard oral argument in Thacker v. Tennessee Valley Authority and Rimini Street Inc. v. Oracle USA Inc.
On Tuesday, the justices heard oral argument in Home Depot U.S.A. Inc. v. Jackson and Azar v. Allina Health Services.
On Wednesday, the justices heard oral argument in Knick v. Township of Scott and Tennessee Wine & Spirits Retailers Association v. Blair.
On Friday, the justices meet for their January 18 conference; John Elwood's Relist Watch compiles the petitions relisted for this conference.
Recent Decisions
- New Prime Inc. v. Oliveira A court should determine whether the Federal Arbitration Act’s Section 1 exclusion for disputes involving the “contracts of employment” of certain transportation workers applies before ordering arbitration; here, truck driver Dominic Oliveira’s independent contractor operating agreement with New Prime Inc. falls within that exception.
- Stokeling v. United States The Armed Career Criminal Act’s elements clause encompasses a robbery offense that, like Florida’s law, requires the criminal to overcome the victim’s resistance.
- Culbertson v. Berryhill The Social Security Act’s fee cap of 25 percent of past-due benefits imposed on attorneys who successfully represent Title II benefit claimants in court proceedings applies only to fees for court representation and not to aggregate fees for both court and agency representation.
- Henry Schein Inc. v. Archer and White Sales Inc. The “wholly groundless” exception to the general rule that courts must enforce contracts that delegate threshold arbitrability questions to an arbitrator, not a court, is inconsistent with the Federal Arbitration Act and Supreme Court precedent.
- City of Escondido, California v. Emmons The U.S. Court of Appeals for the 9th Circuit failed to conduct the analysis required by Supreme Court precedents in determining whether two Escondido police officers were entitled to qualified immunity.
- Shoop v. Hill Because Danny Hill’s intellectual disability claim must be evaluated based solely on holdings of the Supreme Court that were clearly established at the time the state-court decisions were rendered, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 6th Circuit’s reliance on Moore v. Texas -- which was handed down much later -- was plainly improper.
see all this term’s cases »
Current Relists
- Altitude Express Inc. v. Zarda Whether the prohibition in Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, 42 U.S.C. § 2000e-2(a)(1), against employment discrimination “because of . . . sex” encompasses discrimination based on an individual’s sexual orientation.
- Bostock v. Clayton County, Georgia Whether discrimination against an employee because of sexual orientation constitutes prohibited employment discrimination “because of . . . sex” within the meaning of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, 42 U.S.C. § 2000e-2.
- Box v. Planned Parenthood of Indiana and Kentucky Inc. (1) Whether a state may require health-care facilities to dispose of fetal remains in the same manner as other human remains, i.e., by burial or cremation; and (2) whether a state may prohibit abortions motivated solely by the race, sex or disability of the fetus and require abortion doctors to inform patients of the prohibition.
More Petitions »
Major Cases
- Lamone v. Benisek
  In case in which the plaintiffs allege that a Maryland congressional district was gerrymandered to retaliate against them for their political views: (1) whether the various legal claims articulated by the three-judge district court are unmanageable; (2) whether the three-judge district court erred when, in granting plaintiffs’ motion for summary judgment, it resolved disputes of material fact as to multiple elements of plaintiffs’ claims, failed to view the evidence in the light most favorable to the non-moving party, and treated as “undisputed” evidence that is the subject of still-unresolved hearsay and other evidentiary objections; and (3) whether the three-judge district court abused its discretion in entering an injunction despite the plaintiffs’ years-long delay in seeking injunctive relief, rendering the remedy applicable to at most one election before the next decennial census necessitates another redistricting.
- Kisor v. Wilkie
  Whether the Supreme Court should overrule Auer v. Robbins and Bowles v. Seminole Rock & Sand Co., which direct courts to defer to an agency’s reasonable interpretation of its own ambiguous regulation.
- Department of Commerce v. U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York
  Whether, in an action seeking to set aside agency action under the Administrative Procedure Act, 5 U.S.C. § 701 et seq., a district court may order discovery outside the administrative record to probe the mental processes of the agency decisionmaker—including by compelling the testimony of high-ranking Executive Branch officials—when there is no evidence that the decisionmaker disbelieved the objective reasons in the administrative record, irreversibly prejudged the issue, or acted on a legally forbidden basis.
- Rucho v. Common Cause
  (1) Whether plaintiffs have standing to press their partisan gerrymandering claims; (2) whether plaintiffs’ partisan gerrymandering claims are justiciable; and (3) whether North Carolina’s 2016 congressional map is, in fact, an unconstitutional partisan gerrymander.
- The American Legion v. American Humanist Association
  (1) Whether a 93-year-old memorial to the fallen of World War I is unconstitutional merely because it is shaped like a cross; (2) whether the constitutionality of a passive display incorporating religious symbolism should be assessed under the tests articulated in Lemon v. Kurtzman, Van Orden v. Perry, Town of Greece v. Galloway or some other test; and (3) whether, if the test from Lemon v. Kurtzman applies, the expenditure of funds for the routine upkeep and maintenance of a cross-shaped war memorial, without more, amounts to an excessive entanglement with religion in violation of the First Amendment.
- Gamble v. United States
  Whether the Supreme Court should overrule the “separate sovereigns” exception to the double jeopardy clause.
see all this term’s cases »
Recent Special Features
Statistical Snapshot

Cases argued 43

Cases decided 9

Summary reversals 2

Merits cases granted to date 73

see all »
Live Blog Archives
See all
Twitter Feed

Tweets by @SCOTUSblog

Full Calendar Submit Event

Jan. 2019

Su	Mo	Tu	We	Th	Fr	Sa
		1 Holiday	2	3	4 Conference	5
6	7 Orders MERCK SHARP & DOHME CORP. V. ALBRECHT (17-290) OBDUSKEY V. MCCARTHY & HOLTHUS LLP (17-1307)	8 HERRERA V. WYOMING (17-532) FOURTH ESTATE PUBLIC BENEFIT CORP. V. WALL-STREET.COM, LLC (17-571) Opinions	9 FRANCHISE TAX BOARD OF CALIFORNIA V. HYATT (17-1299)	10	11 Conference	12
13	14 Orders THACKER V. TENNESSEE VALLEY AUTHORITY (17-1201) RIMINI STREET INC. V. ORACLE USA INC. (17-1625)	15 HOME DEPOT U.S.A. INC. V. JACKSON (17-1471) AZAR V. ALLINA HEALTH SERVICES (17-1484) Opinions	16 KNICK V. TOWNSHIP OF SCOTT, PENNSYLVANIA (17-647) TENNESSEE WINE AND SPIRITS RETAILERS ASSOCIATION V. BLAIR (18-96)	17	18 Conference	19
20	21 Holiday	22 Orders	23	24	25	26
27	28	29	30	31

Orders/Opinions
Arguments
Conferences

Events
Holidays
Multiple

Download our App in the Apple Store
First Mondays see all
Videos see all

Justice Sotomayor at Harvard

On November 13, Justice Sonia Sotomayor, Judge Jennifer Walker Elrod of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 5th Circuit and Judge Susan Carney of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 2nd Circuit presided over the final round of the 2018 Ames Moot Court Competition at Harvard Law School.

Peabody Award
Awarded the Peabody Award for excellence in electronic media.
Sigma Delta Chi
Awarded the Sigma Delta Chi deadline reporting award for online coverage of the Affordable Care Act decision.
National Press Club Award
Awarded the National Press Club's Breaking News Award for coverage of the Affordable Care Act decision.
Silver Gavel Award
Awarded the Silver Gavel Award by the American Bar Association for fostering the American public’s understanding of the law and the legal system.
American Gavel Award
Awarded the American Gavel Award for Distinguished Reporting About the Judiciary to recognize the highest standards of reporting about courts and the justice system.
Webby Award
Awarded the Webby Award for excellence on the internet.

Cases argued	43
Cases decided	9
Summary reversals	2
Merits cases granted to date	73

Comcast v. Behrend

SCOTUSblog Coverage

Featured Posts

Reargument analysis: Justices seek a “middle position” in takings litigation case – Miriam Seifter

Argument analysis: Justices have strong views about removal of class actions – Ronald Mann

Opinion analysis: Interesting 5-4 coalition holds that the ACCA reaches robberies that require force sufficient to overcome resistance (Corrected) – Rory Little

Email Digest Sign-Up

Merits Case Pages and Archives

Recent Decisions

Current Relists

Conference of January 18, 2019

Major Cases

Recent Special Features

Live Blog Archives

Jan. 2019

Download our App in the Apple Store

First Mondays see all

Videos see all

Peabody Award

Sigma Delta Chi

National Press Club Award

Silver Gavel Award

American Gavel Award

Webby Award