Byrd v. Aaron's Inc.’s Empirical Analysis
784 F.3d 154 · 2015
Citation profile
10 federal appellate · 8 district · 3 state decisions
Relationships
Applies 18 U.S.C. § 2511 (Electronic Communications Privacy Act of 1986) · 18 U.S.C. § 2520 (Electronic Communications Privacy Act of 1986) · 28 U.S.C. § 1292 · 28 U.S.C. § 1331
Relies on Amchem Products, Inc. v. Windsor · Eisen v. Carlisle & Jacquelin · General Telephone Co. of Southwest v. Falcon · Califano v. Yamasaki · Phillips Petroleum Co. v. Shutts
Most-quoted passages
The sentences later courts lift from this opinion, ranked by how many decisions quote each — the parts of the opinion doing the work. These counts are smaller than the citation total above because most of the 52 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“The ascertainability inquiry is two-fold, requiring a plaintiff to show that: (1) the class is 'defined with reference to objective criteria'; and (2) there is 'a reliable and administratively feasible mechanism for determining whether putative class members fall within the class definition.'”
4 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“[a]lthough some evidence used to satisfy ascertainability, such as corporate records, will actually identify class members at the certification stage, ascertainability only requires the plaintiff to show that class members can be identified ... Accordingly, there is no records requirement.”
3 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“In 2012 [the Third Circuit] adopted a second element, namely, requiring district courts to make certain that there is “a reliable, administratively feasible” method of determining who fits into the class, thereby imposing a heightened evidentiary burden. Marcus, 687 F.3d at 594. We have precluded class certification unless there can be objective proof “beyond mere affidavits” that someone is actually a class member. Id.; accord Carrera v. Bayer Corp., 727 F.3d 300, 308-12 (3d Cir.2013). This concept has gained traction in recent years. I submit that this “business record” or “paper trail” requirement is ill-advised. In most low-value consumer class actions, prospective class members are unlikely to have documentary proof of purchase, because very few people keep receipts from drug stores or grocery stores. This should not be the reason to deny certification of a class. As Judge Ambro’s dissent from the denial of the petition for rehearing en banc in Carrera noted, “[w]here a defendant’s lack of records ... make it more difficult to ascertain the members of an otherwise objectively verifiable low-value class, the consumers who make up that class should not be made to suffer.” Carrera v. Bayer Corp., No. 12-2621, 2014 WL 3887938 , at (3d Cir. May 2, 2014) (Ambro, J. dissenting). Records are not the only way to prove that someone is in a class. It is the trial judge’s province to determine what proof may be required at the claims submission and claims administration stage. It is”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the concurrence
How this case has been treated — in progress
Whether each later court followed, distinguished, criticized, or overruled this decision. The treatment classification (task #35) runs highest-cited cases first and lights up here as it reaches this one.