Amchem Prods., Inc. v. Windsor

69 Analyses of this case by attorneys

  1. Collateral Attacks on Class Resolutions

    Carlton Fields Jorden BurtBrian PerrymanJuly 8, 2017

    Discrete, separately represented subclasses may be used to ensure that varying groups receive the same level of adequate representation. For example, in Amchem Products, Inc. v. Windsor, 521 U.S. 591 (1997), more than half of the proposed class representatives that were included alleged they or their family members had already suffered injuries as a result of exposure to asbestos, while the remaining proposed class representatives alleged they or their family members had merely been exposed to asbestos, but had not yet suffered any asbestos-related injury.” [17] The parties, with diverse or nonexistent medical conditions, attempted to represent the interests of a single, massive class, leaving a disparity of interest between class members who were currently injured and those whose injuries had not yet manifested.

  2. Ninth Circuit Raises the Bar for Settling Nationwide Consumer-Protection Class Actions

    Montgomery McCracken Walker & Rhoads, LLPPeter BreslauerFebruary 6, 2018

    In re Hyundai and Kia Fuel Economy Litig., No. 15-56014, 2018 WL 505343 (9th Cir. Jan. 23, 2018). The Ninth Circuit reaffirmed that the burden of proving common legal questions predominate is, like all of the Rule 23(b)(3) requirements, on the plaintiff, and the relaxation of Rule 23(b)(3) for settlements that the Supreme Court recognized in Amchem Prods., Inc. v. Windsor, 521 U.S. 591 (1997), extends only to those questions of trial manageability that will not arise once a case settles. The court ruled that state-law variation is not merely a question of manageability, but also implicates the substantive rights of class members.

  3. Ninth Circuit: Plaintiffs Need Not Prove Administratively Feasible Method of Identifying Class Members to Establish Ascertainability

    Kramer Levin Naftalis & Frankel LLPJune 10, 2017

    Supreme Court precedent also counsels in favor of hewing closely to the text of Rule 23. In Amchem Products, Inc. v. Windsor, 521 U.S. 591 (1997), the Court considered whether a settlement-only class could be certified without satisfying the requirements of Rule 23. In holding that it could not,5 the Court underscored that the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure result from “an extensive deliberative process involving . . . a Rules Advisory Committee, public commenters, the Judicial Conference, [the Supreme] Court, [and] Congress.”

  4. A Rule 23 Negotiation Class? Not So Fast!

    Morrison & Foerster LLP - Class DismissedDavid FioccolaNovember 6, 2020

    [6] Id.[7] Amchem Prod., Inc. v. Windsor, 521 U.S. 591, 618 (1997).[8] 332 F.R.D. at 537.

  5. Must the Rule 23 Predominance Requirement Be Satisfied for Purposes of a Class Settlement? The Ninth Circuit Says, “Yes.”

    Bradley Arant Boult Cummings, LLPMichael PenningtonMarch 22, 2018

    Comcast Corp. v. Behrandand the Supreme Court’s specific admonitions about the application of Rule 23’s criteria to a class settlement agreed that: To be sure, when “[c]onfronted with a request for settlement-only class certification, a district court need not inquire whether the case, if tried, would present intractable management problems, for the proposal is that there be no trial.” Amchem[Prods., Inc. v. Windsor, 521 U.S. 591, 620 (1997)]. But “other specifications of the Rule—those designed to protect absentees by blocking unwarranted or overbroad class definitions—demand undiluted, even heightened, attention in the settlement context.”

  6. Third Circuit Announces Numerosity Standard

    Kramer Levin Naftalis & Frankel LLPFebruary 2, 2017

    Hydrogen Peroxide, 552 F.3d at 312 (internal quotation marks omitted). Although Defendants raise the issue of predominance first, the requirements of Rule 23(a) are “threshold requirements,” Amchem Prods., Inc. v. Windsor, 521 U.S. 591, 613 (1997), and we therefore address them first.A. NumerosityRule 23(a)(1) sets forth what is commonly known as the numerosity requirement. The text is, however, conspicuously devoid of any numerical minimum required for class certification.

  7. Class Certification Denied Where Damages Model Failed to Isolate Value of ‘Amorphous’ Claim

    Kramer Levin Naftalis & Frankel LLPNovember 6, 2016

    “The adequacy inquiry under Rule 23(a)(4) serves to uncover conflicts of interest between named parties and the class they seek to represent.” Amchem Products, Inc. v. Windsor, 521 U.S. 591, 625 (1997). Notwithstanding the concerns expressed below, the Court finds that Plaintiffs satisfy both requirements.1.

  8. Romig v. Pella Corp., No. 2:14-cv-00433 2016 WL 3125472 (D.S.C. June 3, 2016)

    Kramer Levin Naftalis & Frankel LLPAugust 8, 2016

    “The Rule 23(b)(3) predominance inquiry tests whether proposed classes are sufficiently cohesive to warrant adjudication by representation.” Amchem Prods. v. Windsor, 521 US. 591, 623 (1997). The predominance requirement is “far more stringent than the commonality requirement of Rule 23(a).”

  9. Class Certification Denied in Common Defect Case Where Individual Issues Predominated

    Kramer Levin Naftalis & Frankel LLPAugust 8, 2016

    “The Rule 23(b)(3) predominance inquiry tests whether proposed classes are sufficiently cohesive to warrant adjudication by representation.” Amchem Prods. v. Windsor, 521 US. 591, 623 (1997). The predominance requirement is “far more stringent than the commonality requirement of Rule 23(a).”

  10. Class Certification Issues in Coronavirus-Related Commercial Property Insurance Litigation

    Zelle LLPShannon O'MalleyApril 10, 2020

    O’Malley, Commercial Property Insurance Coverage and Coronavirus, at 2-3.Amchem Prods., Inc. v. Windsor, 521 U.S. 591, 625 (1997).Amchem Products, Inc. v. Windsor, 521 U.S. 591, 623 (1997).