Rule 23(b)(3)
Subscribe to Rule 23(b)(3)'s Posts

Third Circuit Upholds Dismissal of Indirect Purchaser Class in Auto Transmission Case, Revives Individual Claims

On February 9, the US Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit upheld a ruling by the US District Court for the District of Delaware that indirect purchasers of Class 8 transmissions did not meet the requirements for class certification. The Third Circuit found that only the individual claims may proceed in the case. The opinion is significant because it reaffirms the difficulty indirect purchaser plaintiffs face when attempting to certify a class.

Read the full article here.

read more

Court Certifies Class in Hospital Merger Antitrust Lawsuit

On December 10, 2013, Judge Edmond Chang of the Northern District of Illinois certified a class of plaintiffs who filed a proposed class action against NorthShore University Health System (formerly Evanston Northwestern Healthcare) on behalf of all end-payors who purchased inpatient and outpatient healthcare services directly from NorthShore.

In 2000, Evanston Northwestern acquired rival Highland Park Hospital.  The FTC successfully challenged the consummated merger in 2004, but did not order divestiture because the hospitals had already been merged and was functioning as a single entity for several years.  After the FTC’s decision, the plaintiffs brought their class action, alleging that NorthShore illegally monopolized the market and caused the plaintiffs and the putative class to pay artificially inflated prices for healthcare services.

A previously assigned judge denied the plaintiffs’ motion for class certification, holding that the plaintiffs had failed to satisfy the Rule 23(b)(3) “predominance” prerequisite to class certification – i.e., that there are questions of law or fact common to class members that predominate.  Fed. R. Civ. P. 23(b).  On interlocutory appeal, the Seventh Circuit held that the plaintiffs did satisfy predominance, then vacated the district court’s order and remanded.

On remand, Judge Chang held that the only remaining issue as to class certification was whether  the plaintiffs had satisfied the Rule 23(b)(3) “superiority” prerequisite to class certification, i.e., that a class action must be “superior to other available methods for fairly and efficiently adjudicating the controversy.”  Fed. R. Civ. P. 23(b)(3).  NorthShore argued that  the plaintiffs failed to satisfy the superiority prerequisite because: 1) arbitration is superior to class action litigation (with respect to the payors who NorthShore alleged are bound by arbitration provisions in the payor contracts); 2) managed care organizations have an interest in individually controlling any claim against NorthShore; and 3) class certification would be unmanageable because a trial would require “hundreds of mini-trials analyzing many individual [NorthShore contracts with payors]”.  Judge Chang disagreed, finding, among other things, that the parties disagreed as to whether all of NorthShore’s contracts with payors even contained arbitration provisions.  Moreover, Judge Chang noted that the payors had not yet taken a position as to whether they wanted to exercise their individual right to control the litigation, despite ample opportunity to do so.  Finally, Judge Chang commented that the “Seventh Circuit credited the ability of the plaintiffs’ expert . . . to use common evidence to show that all of the class members suffered some antitrust impact,” which would eliminate the need for hundreds of mini-trials on liability.  Accordingly, Judge Chang found that the plaintiffs had satisfied the superiority prerequisite and certified the class.

This is a unique case because most hospital mergers are challenged pre-consummation, where an injunction is the only remedy available to plaintiffs.  In fact, this is the first private antitrust class action related to a hospital merger.

read more





Ranked In Chambers USA 2022
US Leading Firm 2022