We have posted about the impact of Comcast Corp. v. Behrend, 133 S. Ct. 1426, 1435 (2013). As the Supreme Court reemphasized in Comcast, in order for Rule 23(b)(3)’s predominance requirement to be satisfied, a plaintiff must bring forth a damages measurement that can be applied class-wide and that ties the plaintiffs’ legal theory to the impact of the defendant’s allegedly illegal conduct. Thus, after Comcast, a key question is whether a plaintiff has met its burden of establishing that damages can be proven on a class-wide basis. See In re Diamond Foods, Inc., Sec. Litig., 2013 WL 1891382, at *252 (N.D. Cal. May 6, 2013).

One approach of lower courts to this issue is to require plaintiffs seeking class certification of their state law claims to file briefing specifically to address whether they have a reasonable way to measure damages on a class-wide basis.  See Edwards v. Nat’l Milk Producers Fed’n, No. 3:11-cv-04766-JSW (N.D. Cal., 5/28/14).

The trial court noted that in Comcast, the Supreme Court held that “[c]alculations need not be exact, … but at the class certification stage (as at trial), any model supporting a plaintiff’s damages case must be consistent with its liability case, particularly with respect to the alleged anticompetitive effect of the violation.” Comcast, 133 S.Ct. at 1433 (internal quotation marks and citations omitted).
Moreover, “for purposes of Rule 23, courts must conduct a rigorous analysis to determine
whether that is so.” Id. (internal quotation marks and citation omitted).

Plaintiff moved for class certification in an antitrust case involving milk cow herds, and defendants moved to strike plaintiff’s expert, Dr. Connor.  He purported to calculate the effects of the defendant’s herd retirement program on a national level and multiplied his total calculation by the percentage of the population of the states in which Plaintiffs were bringing state-law claims. The problem with this method was that Plaintiffs, as indirect purchasers, were not bringing a federal anti-trust claim. They were only bringing state-law claims, and not in every state. Dr. Connor’s calculations included the effects from states in which Plaintiffs were not challenging any activity as illegal.

Thus, the Court found that Plaintiffs had not shown “that their damages stemmed from the defendant’s actions that created the legal liability.” Leyva v. Medline Indus. Inc., 716 F.3d 510, 514 (9th Cir. 2013) (citing Comcast, 133 S.Ct. at 1435). It was not clear whether Plaintiffs could modify their method of calculations in order to capture only the alleged effects from the states in which they contend Defendants violated antitrust laws. But, the Court directed Plaintiffs to file an additional brief to address whether they have a reasonable method for determining, on a class-wide basis, the alleged antitrust violations’ impact on class members.