Third Circuit Emphasizes Distinction Between Ascertainability Analysis And Rule 23 Requirements

Action Item: Byrd, the latest in a recent line of cases from the Third Circuit concerning the ascertainability standard, emphasizes the importance of keeping the ascertainability analysis distinct from Rule 23's other requirements.

In Byrd v. Aaron's, Inc., the Third Circuit reversed a decision denying class certification on ascertainability grounds after concluding that the District Court conflated its ascertainability analysis with the explicit requirements of Rule 23. 2015 WL 1727613 (3d Cir. April 16, 2015). While citing to and discussing its recent decisions that required an ascertainability finding at the class certification stage in class actions arising under Rule 23(b)(3), (see Marcus v. BMW of N. Am., LLC, 687 F.3d 583 (3d Cir. 2012); Hayes v. Wal–Mart Stores, Inc., 725 F.3,d 349 (3d Cir. 2013); Carrera v. Bayer Corp., 727 F.3d 300 (3d Cir. 2013)), the Court emphasized that the ascertainability requirement is separate from Rule 23's other requirements and