{"id":443,"date":"2023-04-17T07:54:27","date_gmt":"2023-04-17T11:54:27","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/blogs.duanemorris.com\/classactiondefense\/?p=443"},"modified":"2023-12-01T17:47:30","modified_gmt":"2023-12-01T21:47:30","slug":"seventh-circuit-teaches-important-lesson-on-the-rigorous-analysis-required-for-rule-23-class-certification","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/blogs.duanemorris.com\/classactiondefense\/2023\/04\/17\/seventh-circuit-teaches-important-lesson-on-the-rigorous-analysis-required-for-rule-23-class-certification\/","title":{"rendered":"Seventh Circuit Teaches Important Lesson On The \u201cRigorous Analysis\u201d Required for Rule 23 Class Certification"},"content":{"rendered":"

\"\"<\/a>By Gerald L. Maatman, Jr., Shaina Wolfe, and Aaron A. Bauer<\/strong><\/p>\n

Duane Morris Takeaways: <\/em><\/strong>In Eddlemon v. Bradley University, No. 20-01264 (7th Cir. Apr. 12, 2023), the U.S. Court of Appeal for the Seventh Circuit vacated<\/a> an Illinois federal district court\u2019s class certification order because it failed to conduct a \u201crigorous analysis\u201d of each of the Rule 23 factors \u2013 numerosity, commonality, typicality, and adequacy of representation. A student alleged, among other things, that during the COVID-19 pandemic, Bradley University breached its implied contract with students by shortening the Spring 2020 semester and continuing to charge students full tuition, and was unjustly enriched by charging students for their unused activity fees. The district court granted class certification to students that paid full tuition and activity fees for the Spring 2020 semester. The Seventh Circuit held that the district court did not thoroughly evaluate the Rule 23 factors because it relied only on the pleadings and failed to ensure that the plaintiff had met each of the required factors. The Seventh Circuit\u2019s decision serves as a reminder that plaintiffs must offer sufficient evidence and show how each of the Rule 23 factors are met, and district courts must rigorously analyze the Rule 23 requirements prior to certifying a class action.<\/em><\/p>\n

Case Background<\/strong><\/p>\n

With the unexpected onset of COVID-19 during the Spring Semester of 2020, Bradley University, like many other schools, transitioned from in-person to remote learning. To facilitate the transition, the university extended its Spring break, which in-turn, shortened the school\u2019s 15-week spring semester to 14 weeks.<\/p>\n

A student sued the university for breach of an implied contract because the university charged students full tuition despite the shortened semester. The student alleged that the university\u2019s class catalog served as a contract that entitled the student to 15 weeks of education. The student also alleged that the university was unjustly enriched by the collected student activity fees because students did not attend any on-campus activities. The student sought class certification on behalf of the 7,759 other students.<\/p>\n

The U.S. District Court for the Central District of Illinois granted Rule 23 certification of two classes, including: (1) students whose Spring 2020 semester was shortened, and (2) students who paid the Spring 2020 semester activity fees.\u00a0 The university filed a Rule 23(f) appeal with the Seventh Circuit, challenging the district court\u2019s analysis of the commonality and predominance requirements. The university argued that the district court erred in granting class certification because it relied solely on the student\u2019s pleadings without assessing the record. The university also argued that the district court failed to identify or separately analyze the student\u2019s claims.<\/p>\n

The Seventh Circuit\u2019s Ruling Vacating Class Certification<\/strong><\/p>\n

The Seventh Circuit vacated the district court\u2019s class certification order and remanded for further proceedings. The Seventh Circuit agreed with the university\u2019s two main arguments.<\/p>\n

First, the Seventh Circuit noted that \u201c[t]he district court\u2019s certification order does not reveal whether the court examined the record,\u201d but that the district court repeatedly referred to the student\u2019s allegations without addressing his purported evidence (e.g., the university\u2019s class catalog) or examining how the student would prove his allegations with common evidence. The Seventh Circuit held that the district court\u2019s certification order, therefore, rested on an error of law and amounted to an abuse of discretion because Rule 23 required it to \u201cgo beyond the pleadings.\u201d<\/p>\n

Second, the Seventh Circuit explained that the district court\u2019s analysis was incomplete because it did not identify or separately analyze the elements of plaintiff\u2019s claims, which is critical to the predominance analysis. The Seventh Circuit emphasized that the district court failed to note the elements of the student\u2019s claims. Instead, the district court listed only one common question for each class without explaining the question\u2019s \u201crelative importance\u201d to each claim, whether any individual questions existed, or how the common question predominated over individual questions. The Seventh Circuit opined that the district court\u2019s analysis was \u201cfatal,\u201d and reiterated that a \u201cone size (or one claim approach) is at odds with the rigorous analysis required at the class certification stage.\u201d<\/p>\n

Finally, the Seventh Circuit took the \u201copportunity\u201d to clarify that, at the certification stage, the district court may only consider the merits of a claim to the extent it is relevant to determining whether the Rule 23 prerequisites for class certification are satisfied.<\/p>\n

Implications for Employers<\/strong><\/p>\n

The Seventh Circuit\u2019s decision in Eddlemon<\/em> serves as important reminder that plaintiffs must support their motions for class certification with a \u201cpreponderance of the evidence\u201d and district courts must conduct a \u201crigorous analysis\u201d of the evidence in the record. To defeat class certification, defendants should emphasize the importance of each Rule 23 factor and attempt to show why, under a rigorous analysis, the plaintiff\u2019s class claims should not be certified.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"

By Gerald L. Maatman, Jr., Shaina Wolfe, and Aaron A. Bauer Duane Morris Takeaways: In Eddlemon v. Bradley University, No. 20-01264 (7th Cir. Apr. 12, 2023), the U.S. Court of Appeal for the Seventh Circuit vacated an Illinois federal district court\u2019s class certification order because it failed to conduct a \u201crigorous analysis\u201d of each of … <\/p>\n

Continue reading “Seventh Circuit Teaches Important Lesson On The \u201cRigorous Analysis\u201d Required for Rule 23 Class Certification”<\/span><\/a><\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":575,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"closed","ping_status":"closed","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"footnotes":""},"categories":[37],"tags":[],"ppma_author":[7],"class_list":["post-443","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-class-certification-motions"],"authors":[{"term_id":7,"user_id":575,"is_guest":0,"slug":"gmaatman","display_name":"Gerald L. Maatman, Jr.","avatar_url":"https:\/\/blogs.duanemorris.com\/classactiondefense\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/56\/2022\/09\/maatmangerald-100x100.jpg","0":null,"1":"","2":"","3":"","4":"","5":"","6":"","7":"","8":""}],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/blogs.duanemorris.com\/classactiondefense\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/443","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/blogs.duanemorris.com\/classactiondefense\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/blogs.duanemorris.com\/classactiondefense\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/blogs.duanemorris.com\/classactiondefense\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/575"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/blogs.duanemorris.com\/classactiondefense\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=443"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/blogs.duanemorris.com\/classactiondefense\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/443\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/blogs.duanemorris.com\/classactiondefense\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=443"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/blogs.duanemorris.com\/classactiondefense\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=443"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/blogs.duanemorris.com\/classactiondefense\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=443"},{"taxonomy":"author","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/blogs.duanemorris.com\/classactiondefense\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/ppma_author?post=443"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}