|Docket No.||Op. Below||Argument||Opinion||Vote||Author||Term|
|11-864||3d Cir.||Nov 5, 2012||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.
|Date||Proceedings and Orders |
|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.|
How has COVID-19 changed the Supreme Court? And are any of those changes worth keeping? Today we launch a symposium examining those questions.
First up, a piece from @stevenmazie on how to reform oral arguments after the pandemic.
The court after COVID: A recipe for oral argument reform - SCOTUSblog
The Supreme Court has not yet announced whether it will return to normal operations when the 2021-22 term begins ...
NEW shadow-docket case: New York landlords ask SCOTUS for an emergency order to prevent the state from continuing to enforce its COVID-related eviction moratorium. They say the moratorium "runs roughshod" over their constitutional rights.
Filing here: https://www.scotusblog.com/wp-content/uploads/2021/07/21A8-1.pdf
New on the shadow docket: Florida seeks an emergency order blocking CDC policies that substantially limit cruise ships from sailing.
Florida asks #SCOTUS to block, pending appeal, CDC restrictions imposed on cruise industry b/c of COVID-19 pandemic: https://www.scotusblog.com/wp-content/uploads/2021/07/21A5.pdf
NEW: Mississippi formally asks the Supreme Court to overturn its landmark abortion case, Roe v. Wade, in latest court filing. https://www.supremecourt.gov/DocketPDF/19/19-1392/184703/20210722161332385_19-1392BriefForPetitioners.pdf
Biden’s SCOTUS reform commission met yesterday and discussed several reform ideas including adding justices and adopting a formal code of ethics.
Term limits emerged as a popular idea. But how to implement it — via statute or constitutional amendment?
Term limits emerge as popular proposal at latest meeting of court-reform commission - SCOTUSblog
The Presidential Commission on the Supreme Court reconvened on Tuesday to hear from a new set of experts on vari...
I really enjoyed getting to chat with the incomparable @AHoweBlogger about (1) why #SCOTUS's "shadow docket" *is* a big deal; (2) why it's so hard to figure out how to include it in broader assessments of the Justices' work; and (3) some possible ways to include it going forward. https://twitter.com/SCOTUSblog/status/1417545384314949635
Necessary cookies are absolutely essential for the website to function properly. This category only includes cookies that ensures basic functionalities and security features of the website. These cookies do not store any personal information.
Any cookies that may not be particularly necessary for the website to function and is used specifically to collect user personal data via analytics, ads, other embedded contents are termed as non-necessary cookies. It is mandatory to procure user consent prior to running these cookies on your website.