ARTICLE · 20 FEBRUARY 2012
Plaintiff Left Shopping For Claims After Merger: D.C. Court Denies Class Certification
With its recent rejection of class certification in Kottaras v. Whole Foods Market, Inc., No. 08-1832, 2012 WL 259862 (D.D.C. Jan. 30, 2012) (Boasberg, J.), the federal district court in Washington, D.C., has joined the growing number of courts that require plaintiffs to meet rigorous standards to gain class certification.
United StatesAntitrust/Competition Law
Key Points
- The "rigorous" analysis of class certifica-tion
issues imposed in Wal-Mart Stores, Inc. v. Dukes applies
in antitrust cases, endorsing the approach of the Third Circuit
(In re Hydrogen Peroxide) and other courts.
- Merits issues may be considered in class certification
decisions; in Kottaras v. Whole Foods Market, Inc.,
plaintiff's market definition claim was used to undermine the
class certification motion.
- Plaintiffs must demonstrate that Rule 23 requirements are met;
vague assurances of intent to meet the requirements are
inadequate.
- Proactive rather than reactive use of expert testimony can be
effective in defeating class certification motions.
With its recent rejection of class certification in Kottaras
v. Whole Foods Market, Inc., No. 08-1832, 2012 WL 259862
(D.D.C. Jan. 30, 2012) (Boasberg, J.), the federal district court
in Washington, D.C., has joined the growing number of courts that
require plaintiffs to meet rigorous standards to
We operate a free-to-view policy, asking only that you register in order to read all of our content. Please login or register to view the rest of this article.
